In case you missed it, Mississippi this week became the latest to extend the right to marry to same sex couples who had previously been denied that right. And once again (it has not always been the case, but it’s been a pretty damned good bet) the court’s decision is a very good read.
It occurs to me that I have not seen a single comment from someone opposed to same sex marriage (and I have read hundreds if not thousands of such comments) that has not been directly addressed by the court in the decision the commenter is allegedly writing about. So… which is more likely–that the commenters never read the decision, or that they have the reading comprehension skills of a bag of sand?
Too bad, really–The vast majority of these decisions have been a joy to read.
It has become clear to the court that people marry for a number of reasons: marriage is a profound source of emotional support; marriage is a private and public expression of commitment; some marry in exercise of their religious beliefs; some do so because it opens the door to economic and government benefits; there are those who marry to present a certain status or image; and others do it for the noble purpose of legitimizing their children. In reviewing the arguments of the parties and conducting its own research, the court determined that an objective person must answer affirmatively to the following questions:
Can gay and lesbian citizens love?
Can gay and lesbian citizens have long-lasting and committed relationships?
Can gay and lesbian citizens love and care for children?
Can gay and lesbian citizens provide what is best for their children?
Can gay and lesbian citizens help make their children good and productive citizens? Without the right to marry, are gay and lesbian citizens subjected to humiliation and indignity?
Without the right to marry, are gay and lesbian citizens subjected to state-sanctioned prejudice?Answering “Yes” to each of these questions leads the court to the inescapable conclusion that same-sex couples should be allowed to share in the benefits, and burdens, for better or for worse, of marriage
A straight PDF, without having to deal with Scribd’s BS, can be found at http://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2014/11/248258513-3-14-cv-00818-30-Mississippi-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf
Does anyone understand the Judge’s reference to irony in footnote 2 on p. 7? He gives citations, but I don’t have them available to me.
You were neither kidding nor exaggerating. Thanks for that, I never would have found it in news myself.
LukaA @1: I’m guessing the irony is Fordice’s own two divorces, the first of which was triggered by his having an affair with the woman who became his second wife.
Wow, the usual straggler isn’t last on this question. I guess that means that there are more than a dozen states that can’t say “At least we’re not Mississippi.”
I wonder which will be that last state to hold out.
“So… which is more likely–that the commenters never read the decision, or that they have the reading comprehension skills of a bag of sand?”
Yes.
They are so convinced that they are right that any evidence to the contrary just doesn’t register. Anything counter that does get through is dismissed as “activist judges” or “Teh Gay” conspiring. They are completely impervious to reality.