Taking it to the Supreme Court
, lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies think they can make same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states. (So far, there are only five.)
"This new federal lawsuit, brought by a pair of prominent but socially liberal lawyers, has very little chance of succeeding," says Andrew Pugno (which is Italian for "fist"
), one of the lawyers who helped get California's Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8. He also says this case is an attack on the will of the voters.
But Ted Olson should be on stable ground when it comes to attacking the will of the electorate. After all, he is the man who - nine years ago - convinced the high court that George W. Bush was the 43rd President of the United States. He says, "We think we know what we're doing."
Bitter facetious jabs aside, there are times when the will of the voters must be not only attacked, but stabbed viciously with jagged-edged things until it howls no more. Remember, the majority of the voters
once supported things like Segregation and white-males-only at the voting booth... They were wrong, and so are the people today who cry out that same-sex marriage will degrade the "family."
Listen, I don't necessarily believe that all humans are created equal in every way. But I do
believe that very concept is the law of our land, the shining central principle to America's revolutionary agenda. You grant a legal right to some humans, and deny it to others, and you are violating the spirit of America. Do you like raping your country? Do you?
And fuck the degradation of your family. That's being handled quite nicely by smart people in Television. Your children are drooling hate-filled zombies with iPhones and debit cards. *
What is marriage?
It's a legal contract. Yes, it's also a spiritual joining of souls in the eyes of God, and the happiest day of your life, and the first step on the short road to being a divorcee. But none of those things are contained in marriage's legal definition. Especially that part about God, because God's not allowed to write legislation in America.
This handy legal contract covers two people who share a dwelling space, share expenses, pool income, and reap a few piddling tax benefits from the arrangement.
Going round to see the justice of the peace and getting yourself a marriage license is not terribly different from opening up a business. You let gay people do that. I know you do -- I've been
to hair salons.
If all you good little Christians don't want to recognize same-sex couples' right to marry, you don't have to ... within your churches and in your own thoughts. That's your right. And, hey, I understand. Your religion forbids homosexuality. And Americans are protected from religious persecution, aren't they? But it's a two-way street, my friends. You have to respect the rest of us in order for us to respect you. And my
religion forbids hate and ignorance, so maybe my religion refuses to recognize your
marriage. But neither of us has any right to deny anyone the legal
recognition. Marriage is handily defined in legal terms here
. And yes, it does use the terms "man" and "woman." But that's just semantics. Besides, look again. It also says "free" man and "free" woman, and if that's not clear enough it goes on to state "the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves
, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage."
Perhaps it is time to update the wording? Just a titch? Because it's maybe just the slightest bit outdated?
I mean, if Star Trek
can change its tune from "where no man has gone before" to "where no one
has gone before," can't we take the hint? Can't we say marriage involves two "free citizens" (who, of course, are not slaves. We can't have the slaves marrying, now can we?)