George Will and Paul Krugman Agree

California’s Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8′s same-sex marriage ban. I think it still put the lower courts in a position to say it’s morally and law fully right for a woman to marry a woman or a man to marry a man. We as a society have been teaching our children that an ideal family is a man and a woman who’s join in union and one. They go forth with reproduction of children to carry forth the family name and legacy of the family through the generations and time. We still don’t have any scientific findings to support the gay factor or genes. It puts the courts in a super bad position to render a decision with no hard evidence to support any theory of “what is Gay”. I do and will always support life partners and everyone has rights to be with whom ever they want to be with. But our courts “MUST” stay always with in the scope of the law base on factual evidence brought and presented before our courts. It’s our rights to peaceful protest. But, we must depend on our courts to help us sort on decisions that govern of our country. Our lawmaker “Must” work hard to present supported evidence to get these laws enacted base on hard facts and not guess work.

Grecian Lady is taking Sotomayor’s comments out of context. Sotomayor was specifically disagreeing with Justice O’Connor’s statement that a wise woman & wise man will arrive at the same conclusion. The US justice system should strive for the ideal of equality under the law. Embracing diversity should not include embracing everybody’s individual prejudices.

Adagioforstrings; Yes, I agree that the US justice system should embrace diversity, but how is it that the Supreme Court has a majority of males? Don’t smart female justices count? God knows, it’s taken too long to find intelligent women to uphold rational decision making!
Let’s wait and see what happens, that’s all.

Gays and Equal Rights
Why does not someone answer the demand of Gays for equal rights? We don’t want to be unfair. The constitutional right to equal protection does not mean that everyone must be treated the same. An adult, two or three times the age of a child may be given voting or property rights that are not given to the child… In the use of a village owned parking field, a nonresident may be charged a fee higher than charged to a village resident. A healthy, able bodied, person need not be given the same right to public accommodations as a handicapped person. What is the test? Where there is a substantial difference between two groups having some reasonable relation to the subject of the regulation. In the case of benefits given to married couple and withheld from “gay unions” there is ample reason why rights given to a union of a man and a woman can be withheld (and perhaps should be) from a “gay” couple. This distinction is not based on religious principles.
For centuries the family has been regarded as a foundation of a tribe or nation. This is a union designed to produce the children needed to sustain nation. We see this illustrated in present day Europe. The non-Muslim couples in nations like France are not having children. Abortion and contraception have led to a situation where the marrieds are not replacing themselves. The Muslims are producing children and expanding. It is in the interest of a nation to encourage family stability and production of offspring. Is it not fair to ask: What benefits flow to the national welfare from the union of same sex couples? There is no constitutional objection to laws treating the two groups differently.
One might question my expertise in this area of the law. I graduated law school “summa cum laude”. I was a judge for 15 years. I handled the legislative program of Nassau County for 10 years.