Judicial rogues
This ruling is no surprise:
Gay marriage legal in California
What a radical idea: let the public vote on it, and actually allow the will of the majority to decide.
I've been reading a lot of discussion on this from various conservative blogs and forums and the libertarian view seems to be winning the day overall: in other words 'whatever consenting adults want to do is their business, and government should stay out of it." Some people add that ''government has no business involving itself in marriages between people, which should be the province of religious authorities'', or of the 'consenting parties', whether they be atheist, pagan, or whatever.
The old socially conservative, tradition-minded opinions seem to be fewer and farther between among 'conservatives' these days. Thanks in part, I believe, to the counterculture influence, most 'conservatives' these days are libertarians with a few 'conservative' fillips.
But if conservatives are content to allow radical changes such as these to be enacted, what will there be to conserve? The traditional Western practice of monogamous marriage, between a man and a woman, is the basis of our society. If we adopt the view that 'it's just between two (or more) consenting individuals', then this is essentially the libertarian view, which holds that, contrary to John Donne's phrase 'no man is an island.', indeed all men are islands, entire to themselves, and that 'society', or the larger group, has no claim on individuals.
We are already drifting towards a chaotic society in which everybody is a law unto himself in so many ways; any move towards deconstructing marriage and by extension, the family, will only accelerate the chaos.
And then there is the pesky question of the will of the people, and the proper role of the judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch. Maybe it's legalistic of me, but this seems to be an important issue in cases like this, wherein the judiciary see fit to overturn or flout the expressed will of the people. This is another trend across the country, and it bodes no good for America.
If 'conservatives continue to adopt the libertarian view, defying tradition and custom, who will be left to conserve the traditions and the mores which have been the basis for our society for centuries?
Gay marriage legal in California
SAN FRANCISCO - A deeply divided California Supreme Court said Thursday that California's ban on gay marriage is not legal, a move that sent off wild cheers and celebration in San Francisco but one that will face new fights from opponents of same-sex marriage. Under court rules, the ruling does not take effect for 30 days, lawyers involved in the case said, and opponents of gay marriage said they would ask the court to stay its decision pending an expected vote by the public in November.''
What a radical idea: let the public vote on it, and actually allow the will of the majority to decide.
I've been reading a lot of discussion on this from various conservative blogs and forums and the libertarian view seems to be winning the day overall: in other words 'whatever consenting adults want to do is their business, and government should stay out of it." Some people add that ''government has no business involving itself in marriages between people, which should be the province of religious authorities'', or of the 'consenting parties', whether they be atheist, pagan, or whatever.
The old socially conservative, tradition-minded opinions seem to be fewer and farther between among 'conservatives' these days. Thanks in part, I believe, to the counterculture influence, most 'conservatives' these days are libertarians with a few 'conservative' fillips.
But if conservatives are content to allow radical changes such as these to be enacted, what will there be to conserve? The traditional Western practice of monogamous marriage, between a man and a woman, is the basis of our society. If we adopt the view that 'it's just between two (or more) consenting individuals', then this is essentially the libertarian view, which holds that, contrary to John Donne's phrase 'no man is an island.', indeed all men are islands, entire to themselves, and that 'society', or the larger group, has no claim on individuals.
We are already drifting towards a chaotic society in which everybody is a law unto himself in so many ways; any move towards deconstructing marriage and by extension, the family, will only accelerate the chaos.
And then there is the pesky question of the will of the people, and the proper role of the judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch. Maybe it's legalistic of me, but this seems to be an important issue in cases like this, wherein the judiciary see fit to overturn or flout the expressed will of the people. This is another trend across the country, and it bodes no good for America.
If 'conservatives continue to adopt the libertarian view, defying tradition and custom, who will be left to conserve the traditions and the mores which have been the basis for our society for centuries?
Labels: conservative principles, judicial activism, liberalism, rogue government, social change, social conservatism
posted by Vanishing American at
8:56 PM
