the Court frames the issue in terms of whether the name "marriage" can be reserved to the union of a male and a female in a state where there are already substantial protections for domestic partnerships. It would be a different question, the majority says, if the domestic partnership legislation didn't already exist.which, since the Court (quite logically) takes away the middle ground, could have an unexpected result:
Folks who respond to appeals to their compassion even as they wish to hold onto their moral judgments would find that they can't have it both ways. A possible consequence is less public willingness to accept the middle ground shown in this case to be untenable. There's no ground on which a middle position can be based: for those who favor traditional marriage, the options are either victory or surrender.What frustrates me is that if we had any skilled politicians in the Republican party, this decision would be seen for the gift that it is. McCain could ride it to the Presidency and it would be good for a couple of Congressional seats in CA, too. Alas, it is an absolute given that Mac & the GOP will fold this hand. Here's all the campaign had to say about it yesterday, and there's not a word on the campaign site that I can find, not even this statement.
John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions.I'll take that as disagreement with the decision? More stuff on the decision at Bench Memos (scroll around). Here's the Gray Lady's story, which ordinarily I wouldn't link, but this surprised me, given CA's population is roughly 37 million.
About 110,000 same-sex couples live in California, according to census data.Is that all? I would have guessed that as the number for San Francisco alone.
Update: Right To Wife
