Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Friends
Usuals
Comments powered by
Site Meter Web Counter
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 07, 2006 04:50 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 07, 2006 04:50 PM
A Nice Day
Or, one correction and then general
goodness
As a certain someone commented on my previous post,
of course I jinxed the M's, who are now two games below .500 and about the start
a series against the first-place (!) Detroit Tigers. There is still faith
though.
Today is one of those days in the mid-Atlantic when you realize that summer doesn't have to be an unmitigated hell. At this very moment, it's 79 with 43% humidity. It's supposed to be like this tomorrow too (and then, of course, turn evil). Last night we actually grilled; tonight, I am on the hunt for outdoor dining. It's nice.
In other news, NY's supreme court rejected gay marriage. Fine, I don't really care. However, part of their reasoning was the best:
Today is one of those days in the mid-Atlantic when you realize that summer doesn't have to be an unmitigated hell. At this very moment, it's 79 with 43% humidity. It's supposed to be like this tomorrow too (and then, of course, turn evil). Last night we actually grilled; tonight, I am on the hunt for outdoor dining. It's nice.
In other news, NY's supreme court rejected gay marriage. Fine, I don't really care. However, part of their reasoning was the best:
"[T]he Legislature could
rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to
promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex
relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the
birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of
science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result
of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could
find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that
such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an
important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the
relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an
inducement - in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits - to
opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each
other.
The Legislature could
find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to
same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial
insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a
result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable
relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that
children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex
relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature
could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples
only."
In other words, the breeders need marriage because when they irresponsibly screw around, kids come out, and so they need to have marriage to reign them in.
Funny, frankly.
Marriage because of irresponsibility, not responsibility. Funny.
There is an interesting thread about this decision on Andrew Sullivan's blog (yes, like a masochist, I keep reading him for some reason, even though he is largely off his rocker). NJ's domestic partnerships are open to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over 62; the oldsters also can get marriage if they want to. I think this is perhaps why NJ will legalize same-sex marriage: if it's all about the children, then why can old straights get married and not gays?
Interesting, interesting.
In other words, the breeders need marriage because when they irresponsibly screw around, kids come out, and so they need to have marriage to reign them in.
Funny, frankly.
Marriage because of irresponsibility, not responsibility. Funny.
There is an interesting thread about this decision on Andrew Sullivan's blog (yes, like a masochist, I keep reading him for some reason, even though he is largely off his rocker). NJ's domestic partnerships are open to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over 62; the oldsters also can get marriage if they want to. I think this is perhaps why NJ will legalize same-sex marriage: if it's all about the children, then why can old straights get married and not gays?
Interesting, interesting.
Posted: Fri - July 7, 2006 at 04:49 PM |