« Define That Term #124 | Main | Monday's NY Blawg Round Up »

July 09, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


>>>The bottom line for me is that the government should not be involved in marriage at all.

That was my initial reaction as well, but it's simply not workable. Because there are legal benefits to marriage, the gov't has to specifically define what it is. Otherwise, I marry my dog Spot, and take the deduction on my taxes. (Okay, not a canine, but you get the idea.)

I thought the dissent was weaker than the majority. The dissent simply poo-poo's the majority's stated rational basis for denying marriage to same sex couples, and thinks that's an argument. In fact, I think the dissent proves that the issue is indeed a political issue and accordingly, it belongs in the legislature, not in the courts.


p.s. However, I have to agree that the emphasis the majority places on procreation as a reason for marriage is silly in the year 2006. It's an example of the judicial ruling class being out-of-touch with what's happening on the ground. They need to go to Walmart more often. Two worlds.

Nicole Black

You're totally correct re: the need to define marriage, Richard, and I know that *that's* a flaw in my own "philosophical" concept. But, it's far more palatable to me in theory than any of the arguments made in this decision. But, in practice, my proposed construct would likely run into any number of problems. Oh well, that's what happens when you shoot from the hip!


The majority opinion is almost a waste of paper. Why isn't the concurrence the majority opinion?


Slick--why ask why? ;)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

About This Blog

Sui Generis Partner

Receive Updates Via Email


  • This site is intended purely as a resource guide for educational and informational purposes and is not intended to provide specific legal advice. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney in your state. The use and receipt of the information offered on this site is not intended to create, nor does it create, an attorney-client relationship.

    Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or otherwise. However, please be advised that an attorney-client relationship is not created through the act of sending electronic mail to me.

    The comments on this blog are solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does Legal Antics or Nicole L. Black endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.

    Further, any information provided on this blog or in the comments should be taken at your own risk.