In response to:

Marriage Rulings Are Only a 'Ban' on Truth

/ Wrote: Aug 16, 2010 10:39 PM

If the State of California doesn't believe that it has a state interest, the PTMs will be hard pressed to argue otherwise. Moreover, we know that the Court has never held that procreation is required of marriage. Perhaps, the PTMs and the State should spend more time addressing teenage out-of-wedlock births than harm both parents and children. That's a unifying interest, as well as one that is compelling, legitimate, and articulable without exposing an animus to homosexuals.

Join the Debate!

Read Full Story

Marriage Rulings Are Only a 'Ban' on Truth

The word “ban” is negative.

Like “taboo,” the term offends modern sensibilities trained to be ever more accepting of any envelope-pushing behavior.

That’s why the media describe California’s Prop. 8 constitutional marriage law as a “ban,” not the codification of something positive and timeless. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has been misreported for years as the “federal ban on gay marriage.” So when “smarter than God” federal Judge Joseph Tauro in Massachusetts dispatched DOMA on July 9, the media thundered as one: “Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban.”

Similarly, in California, federal Judge Vaughn Walker was widely...

Related Tags: Judges and Courts Constitution