Auros (auros) wrote,

Separate is not equal.

How is William McGuiness, of the CA 1st District Court of Appeals, like Justice Henry Billings Brown, creator of the doctrine of "separate but equal" as applied to race? Click through and find out. It's a short read.

And guess what: If you live in any of these twelve counties {Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma}, you have a chance to give him a vote of No Confidence on November 7th! I'm disappointed that Santa Clara isn't on the list.

Personally, I'm for abolishing all state interference in marriage. Let churches and families decide what they believe god and nature say about personal relationships. The state's sanction is for a union that affects various aspects of law -- family law (i.e. custody of children), inheritance, taxes, medical power of attorney, etc. There's not even any clear benefit to having all of those tied up in one package. We can have a Civil Union EZ, which operates the way marriage does now, but there's no reason you shouldn't have, for example, a pair of widowed sisters operating as a married couple in terms of taxes and inheritance; or have a woman divorced from an abusive ex have a way to formally assign her custody rights (in the event of her death) to a sibling; etc. Currently you can sort of do these things, but you pay a lot of money to a lawyer, and the contracts you end up with aren't always enforceable, because the interaction between marriage and contract law is complicated.


  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded