Originally posted by groveratclick
This is the point that the anti-gay marriage side will never address and hopefully it is something the courts finally start acknowledging.
Actually it has been addressed repeatedly. Not chosing to agree with the reasoning is simply your way of ignoring it.
Certain courts are in a very dangerous place with their rulings lately, especially our own Supreme Court with their increasing propensity to make rulings not on the Constitution but on international standards or court rulings, or on nothing more than personal opinion or whim.
Given human nature though, and the fact that one judge in one court can rule as they wish on almost any matter, I'm sure it will come up for review with the California Supreme Court. If that court refuses to clearly honor the clear understanding and desires of the people as written in the law and concoct some fantasy reasoning to justify their personal opinion, then it is likely that California, as many other states have done, will simply change their Constitution.
It is sort of the people's way of saying if you can't read and understand this, let me make it CAPS and BOLD
It's not just about the right for one group to impose their morals over another, it is about the government needing to provide a rational reasoning behind the denial of civil rights.
It is about the right to self-govern and for those governed to determine the definition of their own words. No right is absolute and one group claiming that a right has been violated simply because they don't want to follow the norms set up for the rest of society to gain access to that right is nonsense. The constant equating of this to a civil rights matter or being the same as race is nonsense as well. Race is a societal construct that has no scientific basis. Gender is not made up.
There is a big difference between claiming that a societal standard is applied unevenly or in a biased manner, and simply declaring that society has no right to create a standard.
Anyone who declares that gender is no basis for determining marriage eligability refuses to admit that age,and number of partners have no greater historical precident, and no greater rationality. Yet they refuse to endorse those measures and fully declare that society has the right to govern on them without it being a civil rights matter. They cling to their own stubborn nonsense that they are more politically correct for now and that is good enough reasoning for them.
To make it clear, anyone who claims that age and number can be governed, but gender cannot is practicing their civil rights reasoning in a hypocritical manner.
Of course, the anti-gay marriage people interviewed for the article could not counter the judge's argument, only spread off-topic outrage:
Bullshit reasoning doesn't need a counter. When someone claims the earth is a cube, that doesn't need a counter, you just let the idiot look like the fool he or she happens to be. The judge is basically saying people don't have the right to govern themselves. What else would that inspire but outrage?