“Gay marriage: Where to now?” Glen Lavy of ADF v. Jon W. Davidson of Lambda Legal
The LA Times contains this point counterpoint piece. ADF attorney Glen Lavy argues for a constitutional amendment. Jon W. Davidson of Lambda Legal argues against it. Glen opens the discussion:
Now that the California Supreme Court has redefined “marriage” to encompass same-sex couples, the obvious question is, “what’s next?” Fortunately for the 4,618,673 California voters who enacted Proposition 22 and whose rights were trampled by the Supreme Court, the issue of the meaning of “marriage” is well on its way to again being decided by the ultimate power in California: the people. . .
The majority’s redefinition of “marriage” was an unavoidable first step in striking down the will of the people. That’s because none of the arguments for same-sex “marriage” make any sense whatsoever if “marriage” means the legal union of a man and woman. Only by removing the universal opposite-sex meaning from the term could the majority then rule that same-sex couples have a right under the California Constitution to marry. That redefinition was essential for the majority’s ruling both under the fundamental right to marriage theory and the equal protection theory . . .
One Comment
This is Davidson’s argument: “we believe voters will agree that none of our sisters or brothers should be excluded from equality under the law. All gay people are asking for is that others follow the Golden Rule and treat us as they would like to be treated — as full members of society who are provided the same right to marry the person they love, just as everyone else is treated.”
Where does this ‘equality’ business stop? If you follow Davidson’s reasoning, which by the way, is not the Golden Rule, polygamists, polymorists, old guys with young girls, etc. should all be granted ‘rights’ simply because they should have an equal right along with the gay community. The reasoning does not take into account the rights (what rights) of children, but only what one group ‘wants.’ A ‘want’ is not a right.
David