A voice of reason

[bronwynrh]

O my goodness. Somebody read one of those Protect The Family Constitutional amendments (Nebraska's, specifically) and actually recognized it for what it was: a trainwreck. Please allow a nonbeliever to say, HALLEfreakinLUJAH!

The Nebraska provision “is at once too broad and too narrow to satisfy its purported purpose of defining marriage, preserving marriage, or fostering procreation and family life,” Bataillon wrote.

He called it “too narrow” because “it does not address other potential threats to the institution of marriage, such as divorce.”

And it is “too broad in that it reaches not only same-sex ‘marriages,’ but many other legitimate associations, arrangements, contracts, benefits and policies.”

Thank you, Justice Bataillon. Thank you!

Comments

[wistfulunicorn.livejournal.com]

A much needed voice of reason.

[bramey.livejournal.com]

Indeed. The way these things are written, they make absolutely no sense - all 'moral justifications' aside. If you read them and spend five minutes thinking about the implications. . . makes my head hurt just thinking about the messes they'll cause for all sorts of people, including people like me and Jeff.

Argh.

I love the Majority Rules argument, too. Back when the civil rights laws were passed, the majority of people in this country didn't like the idea. When women were given the vote, most people in the this country didn't like the idea. Since when is it a given that the majority of the people are always right? Never mind that the majority that they're looking at are only the majority of respondents (active voters, for example) not the actual majority of people. Who knows what the actual majority thinks?

Again. Argh.

[wistfulunicorn.livejournal.com]

And the majority doesn't necessarily believe in what they have voted for (or against) but Johnnie Sue says it's good (bad). No thought or reasoning behind the vote.