so i've read the opinions in the recent NY gay marriage case.
decent analysis from the times.
it makes no sense to me. the main thrust of the presiding decision is that children need hetero marriage to stay psychologically healthy, though there is evidence that it's not just hetero marriage or even marriage in general that produces healthy kids. it's as if this judge decided he didn't like gay marriage and so codified it.
meanwhile, the dissenting opinion, which is longer and much better researched, basically lays out a case that just cannot be ignored, at least in my view: that any law which calls for the dissemination of state benefits based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, is a violation of equal protection. marriage is such a state benefit because it confers upon the married couple certain protections.
it's a civil rights issue. i wish more minorities would step to the plate here.
at least both spitzer and bloomberg support it. we'll see what they do.
No comments:
Post a Comment