Sweet Land of Liberty

So there was much rejoicing. About the only cogent argument* I've heard is one that unelected judges should not overturn decisions that the majority of people have made. But the question I'd like to ask to that in turn is: Is an unelected judge overturning a majority decision ever right? I think that it is; that judges are supposed to protect the minority from the majority, because no one else can.

I seem to have lowered my writers' block a bit; I actually have a couple of other posts fermenting in my brain-juice. But this just seemed worthy of note.

ETA: A funny yet accurate summary of the debate is here

*Some religious book defines marriage differently? Irrelevant to the law. Marriages must be for producing children? Simply untrue. It's a slippery slope that will lead to paedophilia and bestiality? Demonstrably untrue, any more than giving women the vote led to hamsters and babies voting. It will degrade hetero marriages? Bewilderingly untrue. Children must be raised by one mother and one father? Untrue, with disturbing implications for the legal future of divorce and single parenting.


  1. alce said...

    You can sign the petition to make divorce illegal in CA. You know, just to keep marriage safe.  

  2. Maria said...

    I was so happy I was jumping around the office. And actually, one of the guys proposed to one of the other guys by way of celebration. He was turned down, but still, it was the thought.

    Such a great day.  


Copyright 2006| Blogger Templates by GeckoandFly modified and converted to Blogger Beta by Blogcrowds.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.