Same sex unions are to marriage what transsexuals are to women (or men).
They are an imposture that fools no one.
They are even less successful, as hoaxes, than the Emperor's new clothes that, at any rate, fooled him.
The case is different for civil unions, which are exactly what they are and don't pretend to be another thing.
Hence this commonly made analogy is wholly inept.
It was no surprise that the Supreme Court held Friday that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
It is very difficult to distinguish the case from Loving v. Virginia, which in 1967 invalidated state laws forbidding miscegenation.
There was, as an economist would say, a “demand” (though rather limited) for biracial marriage, and it was difficult, to say the least, to comprehend why such marriages should be prohibited.
In fact the only “ground” for the prohibition was bigotry.
The same is true with respect to same-sex marriage.
No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such a marriage.
The prohibition of same-sex marriage harms a nontrivial number of American citizens because other Americans disapprove of it though unaffected by it.
Exactly the same defense could be made of a man who wanted to marry his daughter, both his daughter and his son, and his horse.
Even granting that the relevant prohibitions of these things, or their legal nullity, are wholly gratuitous interference in the lives of others motivated by nothing but bigotry, what in the constitution prohibits such interference by states or inferior jurisdictions, exactly?
Nothing at all.
Loving, too, was a liberal hoax, by the way, as has been every decision based on a constitutional privacy right and all of the notoriously liberal decisions based on the equal protection clause.
Just saying.
Judge Posner couldn't care less.
No comments:
Post a Comment