Comments on: As California goes so goes the nation…(not!) http://www.mamanpoulet.com/as-california-goes-so-goes-the-nationnot/ Clucking away crookedly through media, politics and life. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:02:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Sean Reynolds http://www.mamanpoulet.com/as-california-goes-so-goes-the-nationnot/comment-page-1/#comment-62364 Sean Reynolds Sat, 17 May 2008 00:12:03 +0000 http://www.mamanpoulet.com/?p=394#comment-62364 I'm still wading through the case material. A nice 'Time' opinion piece captured some of my sentiment well, that the judgement does both reinvigorate the political campaign and the judges specified the need to call 'it' marriage (and not partnership or such). Crucially, the judges made a very important point about children and the State, when they argued that who raises the children is not the State's business. While there is not a solution in sight (and the American politicians are a spineless as ever), it is an important case, our 'Loving Case', I think. Given the parlous state of the GOP, I don't think there'll be a Rove effect in November, as they scramble for cover. I’m still wading through the case material. A nice ‘Time’ opinion piece captured some of my sentiment well, that the judgement does both reinvigorate the political campaign and the judges specified the need to call ‘it’ marriage (and not partnership or such). Crucially, the judges made a very important point about children and the State, when they argued that who raises the children is not the State’s business. While there is not a solution in sight (and the American politicians are a spineless as ever), it is an important case, our ‘Loving Case’, I think. Given the parlous state of the GOP, I don’t think there’ll be a Rove effect in November, as they scramble for cover.

]]> By: Richard Delevan http://www.mamanpoulet.com/as-california-goes-so-goes-the-nationnot/comment-page-1/#comment-62292 Richard Delevan Fri, 16 May 2008 08:41:32 +0000 http://www.mamanpoulet.com/?p=394#comment-62292 Well, if six months of coequal childcare responsibilities and Herself going off to secret hifalutin pitch meetings while I change nappies hasn't emasculated me, being called "sweetie" doesn't have much chance of bothering me. And hey, with my way you get choice. You can get married in a private ceremony in the eyes of god, you can form a domestic partnership/civil union in the eyes of the law. Or you can do both. Or neither. Be curious to hear your thoughts on the actual decision, though, the majority's reasoning and Corrigan's dissent particularly. If DPAs and marriages have precisely the same legal character bar the m-word, what was the injury? If it's a lack of parity of esteem as well as parity of legal force, is that really a judicial issue rather than a political one? Well, if six months of coequal childcare responsibilities and Herself going off to secret hifalutin pitch meetings while I change nappies hasn’t emasculated me, being called “sweetie” doesn’t have much chance of bothering me.

And hey, with my way you get choice. You can get married in a private ceremony in the eyes of god, you can form a domestic partnership/civil union in the eyes of the law. Or you can do both. Or neither.

Be curious to hear your thoughts on the actual decision, though, the majority’s reasoning and Corrigan’s dissent particularly. If DPAs and marriages have precisely the same legal character bar the m-word, what was the injury? If it’s a lack of parity of esteem as well as parity of legal force, is that really a judicial issue rather than a political one?

]]>