Prop 8 Ruling

[liralen]

Everyone that wants to read a lovely, well-thought through, and really seriously thorough analysis of Judge Walker's ruling and the consequences thereby go to kathrynt's journal and look at THIS.

She's asked that if anyone finds a mistake to tell her. Or, if you're more comfortable telling me, do so, and I'll forward it as you like. It would be nice to make this good and strong.

Comments

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your kind words. I worked really, really hard on that. :-) I really wanted to establish a coherent narrative of Why This Is Special and What Happens Now that didn't require any specialized background or legal expertise. Fortunately, I don't have any myself, so I didn't have to worry about under-explaining!

[liralen.livejournal.com]

I think you did a *lovely* job of it, seriously. Whew... it was nice to read something that coherent on the subject.

Thanks!!!

[beckyb.livejournal.com]

Very cool. Thanks for the write up kathrynt and thanks liralen for the linking. This matches similar types of analyses I've been reading. I'm feeling pretty optimistic and, one day, looking forward to reading the decision.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

I'll post this here so both you and liralen get it:

The US District Court, Northern District of California established a website with material about the case for the press and the public. It's here:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

In addition to the ruling, you can also view certain other documents in the case as well as links to youtube videos of material submitted by both sides.

Please disseminate as you like; I'd actually prefer _not_ to be attributed, although I wouldn't post this if it weren't fine to post.

Cheers,

[annieroo2.livejournal.com]

Very well thought out and spoken. You should be really proud.

[tagryn]

* Jerry Pournelle makes a cognizant case that by making its decision about the wisdom of Prop. 8, rather than its legality, the court significantly overstepped its mandate.

It is not for the courts to debate the wisdom of allowing or forbidding gay marriage. Those are legislative matters. And once you begin to hand over purely legislative matters to judges appointed for life, you have abandoned the principle that governments derive their just rights from the consent of the governed. Of course we can say that this was done long ago, and this is just another step down a familiar road. To which I can only repeat what Buckley said when he founded National Review: "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." Some of us still stand there.

* I liked Dr. Zero's reflections on marriage here. What's interesting to me in reading both sides' reactions is that the anti-Prop 8 folks seem to see the issue primarily as one of individual civil rights, while the pro-Prop 8 folks see it as a matter of preserving an essential social institution that was on the ropes to begin with. Maybe that's why communication is difficult across the gap, because even the terms of the discussion aren't agreed upon. As an old teacher of mine once said: "Two things: (1) Define your terms, and (2) What's your point?" His point being, if you can't agree on (1), arguing (2) isn't worthwhile.

[liralen.livejournal.com]

Yeah... that point your teacher made is really solid.

That is interesting set of points Pournelle makes. Huh... cool.

[annieroo2.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. It makes my heart soar to see every day people take the time to make points like this.