More on marriage in California

Former congressman Jim Ryun's baby boy Ned opines on marriage equality in California. He calls for state and federal constitutional amendments, saying:

if the other side on this debate wants to push their agenda down our throats thru the judicial system, we push back.

But what, exactly, is being pushed down his throat? How does it affect him whether a gay couple has the right to call themselves husbands or wives, or to get the benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples?

We can set aside the various anti-constitutional blathering about how courts shouldn't overturn laws that have majority support as well. That's what courts do. They protect the rights of minorities. This ruling builds on a California Supreme Court ruling which overturned the state's eugenic anti-miscegenation laws decades before the US Supreme Court followed suit. And you better believe that those laws had majority national support when they were overturned. It doesn't matter, because those laws were wrong. They were immoral, illiberal, and unconstitutional. The fact that a bunch of conservatives think it's icky when two men, two women, a black man and a white woman or vice versa fall in love isn't legally or morally relevant.

By the way, the Loving decision and the anti-miscegenation laws themselves are a counterexample to conservative columnist Denis Prager's claim that this is ruling constitutes a "redefining of marriage for the first time in history." Marriage laws change all the time. The early books of the Bible are full of plural marriages, dowries go in and out of fashion, the age at which people may marry changes, common law marriage is accepted and then outlawed, and at the end of the day, society survives. Our notion that marriage is about love is a fairly modern concept; for much of human history, it was principally an arrangement which established social and financial ties between families. I happen to think society is better off for having seen that redefinition of marriage, and the California Supreme Court just extended that concept to the whole of society.

Categories

More like this

I know I said that "all you need to know about [Martin] Cothran" is that he managed to misidentify both my employer and my profession and then repeat those easily corrected errors many times. But it turns out there's more to Cothran. Sure, he's bigoted, has an odd fascination with the word "faggot…
Colbert King wrote a fascinating column in the Washington Post the other day about the history of laws against interracial marriage, or miscegenation. He points out that the appeal to natural law, longstanding tradition and religious tenets, so often heard as arguments against gay marriage, were…
My thanks to Ed Darrell for pointing me to an article by Peter Gomes in the Boston Globe. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and minister of the Memorial Church at Harvard. Of the recent court cases involving gay marriage, he writes: We have seen this before. When the courts…
As part of our multi-part colloquy regarding whether Martin Cothran is, in fact, a gigantic bigot for wanting to take away marriages from 18,000 gay people married in California, the Disco. Inst. blogger wonders: Isn't the whole debate about whether they are marriages in the first place? No. As…

And, as we all know, or should know, pushing things down one's throat often results in nasty abrasions. There are other, gentler ways of performing the act.

>if the other side on this debate wants to push their
>agenda down our throats...

Repressed much, congressman?