WASHINGTON REACTIONS: David Morrison

...Some parts of this story need unpacking, particularly the different reasons Judge Downing gave for his ruling.

"Morality requires it." Downing countered: "... Americans have differing views as to what morality requires in the definition of marriage. It is not for our secular government to choose between religions and take moral or religious sides in such a debate."

Except that is precisely what the court has done. The court has stepped into the middle or what is assuredly a moral question with an opinion for one side. This makes as much sense as throwing out a law against theft, since theft is a moral question as well. ...

"Before the Court stand eight couples who credibly represent that they are ready and willing to make the kind of commitment to partner and family for all the right kinds of reasons. All they ask is for the state to make them able," he wrote

Except they can. Now. Dan and I have been together, first as lovers and now as brothers in faith, for 18 years as of this past July 4. We own property together, have remembered each other in insurance and wills, have had joint savings and capital building accounts in the past and seem likely to have them in the future, have visited each other in hospital past visiting hours with no one saying a word and will soon have medical powers of attorney for each other. All without having asked the State to recognize or particularly validate our sex lives or friendship. Now, imagine that! :) Nothing stopped us and we didn't need to take a central human social institution and turn it on its ear to do it.

The really funny and ironic thing is that, on its face, we could be a poster couple for the case for same-sex marriage, maybe the poster couple. But, you know, we don't have sex, so curiously no one is out filing court papers on our behalf.

more

posted by Eve at 3:37 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home