Separate but equal
The Trib has a nice editorial today in defense of the California judge who ruled that state's gay marriage ban violates the state constitution:
And from this whirlwind comes a campaign against fellow citizens trying to find in this difficult world a measure of happiness through a singular commitment to another human being.
But try to find a compelling state interest in denying two adults the fundamental right to marry because of their sexual orientation. There is none.
posted by Jonathan Potts at
9:33 AM
3 Comments:
I'm glad to see the Libertarian approach to this being applied. I have been waiting to see this from more reasonable minds.
It's good to see this in print as well, because far right fundies have been able to highjack this issue and garner far to much press.
I'm sure the Jim Quinn kool-aid drinkers are gonna love reading that this morning.
10:14 AM
Libertarian approach? Handing out special rights to yet another category of citizen is not the Libertarian approach.
The real problem is having the state granting special rights based on what is essentially a religious ceremony. Separation of church and state, anyone?
A more pure Libertarian approach would be to remove all governmental privilege and recognition from the religious act of marriage. Then anyone can marry any other one (or two, or three, or animal, vegetable, or thing), if you can find a religious figure to sanction it.
Unfortunately, this will never happen.
11:14 PM
If one didn't have a pre-conceived notion about the Trib, one would think it was a pretty liberal newspaper some days. Off the top of my head, I can recall a squishy feminist thing on Title IX, a nice story about jury rigging against African-American criminal, defendants, the ongoing editorial support for on-demand abortion, the opinion page's opposition to the war in Iraq and, for the past several weeks, columns and broadsides to boost the rights for homosexuals to wed.
At the Trib, I see bylines from people like Carl Prine and Deborah Erdley who are, frankly, communists. Especially Prine.
And then I look at the Post-Gazette and find Jack Kelly and Ruth Ann Dailey.
I talked to Jack Kelly once and he seemed somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan.
So much for the "conservative" and "liberal" labels for the two major papers in Pittsburgh.
5:22 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home