Sunday, February 8, 2009

Forced to Divorce

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce...

Voices are important. I don't know how effective it is to petition a court, especially considering that this court is being asked to overturn a vote. But the California Supreme Court needs to recognize that the process by which this vote was made possible was flawed and it should invalidate the result.

One of the big questions is whether the vote revised or amended the constitution. If it revised the constitution it would require more than a mere majority vote. This is a promising argument given the court's finding last May. This proposition clearly revises the reading that led to that decision.

In December Ken Starr took up the cause of Proposition 8. The battle now is to keep the marriages intact that the state granted between May and November of 2008. It's frustrating that so many people who have shared a public commitment are now left hoping that the state will continue to recognize and respect the union. It's sad that families are being fractured in deference to a superstition.


Casey said...

This is really interesting to me--especially your last paragraph... especially your last sentence:

It's sad that families are being fractured in deference to a superstition.

Which superstition are you talking about?--the homophobic mythology of evangelicalism, or the too-popular superstition that relies on the state for sanctification of interpersonal human commitment?

I guess this whole thing is starting to seriously beg the question whether the state can have any authority when it comes to love... and isn't the answer obvious?

I'm starting to be reminded of the imaginary young Catholic couple who has been living in sin for a few years and whose priest, a stickler, refuses to marry them. At some point, isn't it just worth telling the nominal authority to shove it? "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." Isn't that good advice?

Am I clear, or do I sound crazy?

fenhopper said...

the issue here is with the rights that are granted to families. there is nothing the state can do to make the commitment more meaningful. the state can't do anything to discourage a commitment.

but the state can make it a lot harder for one group to make legal and practical decisions. rights of hospital care. rights of adoption. let's ignore the taxes issue. that's only money. and really -- not all that important.

Mxrk said...

I'm sorry, call somebody in central casting. Can we get a cuter kid down here?

fenhopper said...

you're doing everything to sabotage your chances for a comfortable rack in hell mxrk.

The Ridger, FCD said...

The state ratifies the civil contract of marriage. The church (any church) should be kept out of that.

I'm all in favor of making everyone get civil licenses - which they do anyway - but NOT being able to have their priest have "the authority vested in [him] by the state". Let the church(es) have "marriage"; let the state apportion the civil benefits that go with it.