I am so glad Ted Olson is on our side of this case. Also, this hearing is seriously hurting my productivity level today. (I'm currently watching the Prop 8 hearing live-stream through C-Span online).
Today, Cooper (representing the Prop 8 side) said "Baker would have been the same as Loving if same-sex couples had children the same way opposite-sex couples do." suggesting that the only reason interracial marriage was upheld was because of the physical ability for opposite sex, interracial couples to procreate. However, if you read the decision in Loving v. Virginia, you'll find this: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Marriage's purpose according to the SC is not for procreation, but for the pursuit of happiness. And denying the right to an institution associated with the pursuit of happiness to a class of citizens is just wrong. I really hope the judges see that and rule in favor of Judge's Walker's decision from last August.
I've been told that I tell overly detailed stories. Some may find it boring, but I like to pretend that it allows for a fuller understanding of my life and my personality. So this is a place for me to express minute details of seemingly mundane situations. As if you are inside my head...
I'm also really into music. And I like to share what I love, so I write about music often. Not always eloquently, but if you like the same music that I do, then I like to think my posts are helpful.
1 comment:
Today, Cooper (representing the Prop 8 side) said "Baker would have been the same as Loving if same-sex couples had children the same way opposite-sex couples do." suggesting that the only reason interracial marriage was upheld was because of the physical ability for opposite sex, interracial couples to procreate. However, if you read the decision in Loving v. Virginia, you'll find this: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Marriage's purpose according to the SC is not for procreation, but for the pursuit of happiness. And denying the right to an institution associated with the pursuit of happiness to a class of citizens is just wrong. I really hope the judges see that and rule in favor of Judge's Walker's decision from last August.
Post a Comment