MAKING THE BISHOP OF YORKAPPEAR A BIT STUPID

This is going to sound rather snobbish, but I am rather proud of the high standard of intellectual ability my readers display, both on their own blogs and in the comments they leave at my place. Proud and happy because there is nothing that impresses me more than well crafted rhetoric.

Yesterday I received a couple of comments to my post, YOU WOULD THINK HE WOULD UNDERSTAND,  that were of a particularly high quality and which made points that added to and illuminated my original post. I replied at the time I received them that I would publish them, and so here they are. The first is from Doctor Primrose (who is always good value for money).

In 2008 the California Supreme Court held that it violates equal protection to give opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples essentially the same rights and obligations but calling the relationship different names, "marriage" for the first and "domestic partnership" for the second:

"First, because of the long and celebrated history of the term 'marriage' and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples. ...

"Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term 'marriage' is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of second-class citizenship. ...

"Third, it also is significant that although the meaning of the term 'marriage' is well understood by the public generally, the status of domestic partnership is not. While it is true that this circumstance may change over time, it is difficult to deny that the unfamiliarity of the term 'domestic partnership' is likely, for a considerable period of time, to pose significant difficulties and complications for same-sex couples, and perhaps most poignantly for their children, that would not be presented if, like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples were permitted access to the established and well-understood family relationship of marriage." In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-46 (2008).

The second was from superbbluewren who, I guess is Antipodean, probably lives near the den of the Head of the Family Firm and a member of the small, but courageous, group of Christians who live in and around Sydney who face constant oppression by the local self-worshipping gnostics. But I could be wrong about all that.

At the Senate inquiry into amending the Marriage Act here in Australia, I responded to a question on whether civil unions would be adequate. I responded that the existence of a 'whites only' drinking fountain and a drinking fountain for others was inherently discriminatory even if they deliver identical water from identical pipes.At the Senate inquiry into amending the Marriage Act here in Australia, I responded to a question on whether civil unions would be adequate. I responded that the existence of a 'whites only' drinking fountain and a drinking fountain for others was inherently discriminatory even if they deliver identical water from identical pipes.

I could have gone on to say, that riding in the back of the bus will get you to your destination as surely and with the same level comfort as riding in the front...

I could have gone on to say, that riding in the back of the bus will get you to your destination as surely and with the same level comfort as riding in the front...

Comments

MAKING THE BISHOP OF YORKAPPEAR A BIT STUPID — 1 Comment

  1. I wish I could take credit for the “well crafted rhetoric” in my post. But the words are those of the California Supreme Court, not mine. I posted them here (and I have posted them several times elsewhere) because they explain better than anything else I’ve read why trying to maintain a parallel track of relationships — “marriage” for opposite-sex couples and “Brand X” for same-sex couples — does not work and ultimately is just wrong.