Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Betsy's Back Up America

Lawyers Strike Back: Bush v. Gore Lawyers To Challenge California Ruling

2 Comments

It's Not Really a Ban

Prop 8 was meant to codify what was already implicitly in the state constitution (because that was what the people who wrote the constitution assumed) - marriage is between a man and a woman. Because of the state Supreme Court, it ended up being a restoration instead of a mere codification.

I would not call it a "ban on gay marriage". Gays have been "marrying" each other for a few years now, and they are allowed to do that. Prop 8 doesn't bring the force of law down on them. But they should not have the power to force the people of California, against or will, to neuter our marriage licensing.

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/26/handy_dandy_marri age_neutering_plea_repellant.thtml

Marriage Licensing Is State Regulation

The problem I have is actually as stated, the state really had no business getting involved in "licensing" marriages between people to begin with at all. Prior to this century, marriages were simply conducted as they always were, in churches or in the courthouse with two witnesses, and then the marriage was logged in the courthouse record books. That's it. This entire "licensing" scam is nothing but a revenue generator, since you shouldn't need a license from the state to get married anyway, since it is merely a civil private contract between two individuals.

As far as the gay issue, marriage itself as an institution is governed by "natural law," so whether or not the State of California had anything in their Constitution at all, it would not matter - since that is what the founders were referring to insofar as the "common law" and "natural law."

So all these measures are redundant, and all these legal actions merely income generators for the legal profession, and also misleading the public in most of their positions for that tax money they can get now for any and all "civil" rights actions which they lobbied so hard for.

And as I said, lawyers are the biggest group of social welfare recipients and drain on the taxpayers purse of any of the special interest groups bar none.