trinityvixen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
trinityvixen) wrote2008-05-14 02:54 pm
trinityvixen) wrote2008-05-14 02:54 pm
Entry tags:
How about some actual news with the news?
More about the California decision.
Most important part, right here:
The California Supreme Court was the first state high court to strike down a law barring interracial marriage, in a 1948 decision called Perez v. Sharp. The United States Supreme Court did not follow suit until 1967.
Thursday’s decision was rooted in two rationales, and both drew on the Perez decision.
The first was that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. “The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”
Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” the chief justice continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.
Tradition. You've got to be fucking kidding me. TRADITION is a good enough reason to deny people basic human rights? Find me the people who think so right now. I'd like to initiate them into the tradition of me stabbing them in the groin with rusty knives.
Most important part, right here:
The California Supreme Court was the first state high court to strike down a law barring interracial marriage, in a 1948 decision called Perez v. Sharp. The United States Supreme Court did not follow suit until 1967.
Thursday’s decision was rooted in two rationales, and both drew on the Perez decision.
The first was that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. “The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”
Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” the chief justice continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.
Tradition. You've got to be fucking kidding me. TRADITION is a good enough reason to deny people basic human rights? Find me the people who think so right now. I'd like to initiate them into the tradition of me stabbing them in the groin with rusty knives.
Re: Strawman, will you introduce yourself
Re: Strawman, will you introduce yourself
Re: Strawman, will you introduce yourself
Re: Strawman, will you introduce yourself
Re: Strawman, will you introduce yourself
Slavery is a violation of the basic human right to freedom.
Jobs paying less than $20/hr. are slavery
Therefore, jobs paying less than $20/hr. violate basic human rights.
You can't redefine the term mid-syllogism
Re: Strawman, will you introduce yourself
Re: Strawman, will you introduce yourself
Searches require a warrant
Wiretaps are searches
Wiretaps require a warrant
Redefining terms mid-syllogism is how judicial interpretation of guarantees of rights WORKS. Redefining marriage as the right to marry the person you wish, irrespective of sex, is perfectly reasonable if you consider the sexes equivalent and homosexual love to be valid.