Sorry to rain on everybody’s parade, but this isn’t a good thing.

Of course, I have already explained why I believe that civil unions would be better for us than gay marriage. I have also explained why at this point I don’t want gay marriage at all. (For those of you who don’t want to click, I can sum it up: 1) no-fault divorce, 2) alimony and 3) Terri Schiavo.)

Had California’s state legislature passed a law, I wouldn’t be complaining. I still wouldn’t be getting married, for the reasons I referred to above, but I’d have no objection to the ruling. Yes, I think we’d be better off with civil unions instead of gay marriage, but after what’s been done to heterosexual marriage for the last several decades, that wouldn’t really make that much difference. With no-fault divorce, an abandonment of all traditional obligations of husbands and wives to each other, and outrageously unfair alimony settlements, queers getting hitched in a couple of states is the least of the problems marriage has.

But this is a case of judicial activism, which, in case you don’t know, is bad. The courts are not supposed to decide what the laws will be, they are supposed to apply the laws that have been made by the people who were chosen by the voters to make them. When judges start taking it upon themselves to decide what the laws will be, they might decide anything, like that corporations have the right to force individuals to sell their homes to them, or that sluts have the right to murder the children who result from their irresponsible behavior if they don’t feel like looking after them.

If we’re going to have gay marriage, let’s do it through the proper channels, please.

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...