If/when the Supreme Court decision trickles down to NC I'm going to ask Lisa to gay marry me. We've had a nice 25-year run under the old rules, but you gotta keep things fresh.
Also:
Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down...
---Orson Scott Card, 2008.
Looking forward to the follow-up column, presumably to be filed from a bunker in the hills.
Seriously, I would have much preferred to see North Carolina vote in favor of this basic recognition of human and civil rights. A1 was not our best moment.
At least Greensboro got it right.
“Supreme Court decision trickles down to NC …”.
“….Vote in favor of this basic recognition of human and civil rights.”
Upon further review, marriage was never a right of state until politicos through the mechanism of government wanted marriage to be the right of state. It started with a “marriage license” as a tax revenue measure. Of course like all notional political propositions it became larger than life.
Hence marriage is not the purview of the Supreme Court nor a civil right….unless one believes manmade legislation, created by a stroke of a pen of politicos, is indeed “law”…..which happens to be your implicit assumption, Mr. Cone. One might want to note that law is not legislation nor is legislation, law. (1)
Maybe, just maybe repeal, by another stoke of a pen, all marriage legislation and have marriage dealt with as it was before Big Brother decided the rules. Yes, before the politico legislation, people merely got married, end of story.
Your answer to the problem Mr. Cone: More state and more legislation regarding state sanctioned marriage. Very nice indeed!
(1) http://www.amazon.com/Law-Legislation-Liberty-Rules-Order/dp/0226320863/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412620818&sr=1-2&keywords=law+legislation+and+liberty
Posted by: W.E. Heasley | Oct 06, 2014 at 02:43 PM
We've had this conversation before, Bill.
As I said last time, when I refer to manmade legislation as "law" I am relying upon the obscure definition of the word outlined by Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States ("...it shall become a law").
So, yeah, this blog and this country understand "law" differently than you do.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Oct 06, 2014 at 03:05 PM
Re: "Gotta keep things fresh" - Too Funny! Best Wishes for Happy Additional Nuptials!
Posted by: ginia zenke | Oct 15, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Since it's not something he can blame on Obama, who notoriously waffled on it, OSC isn't going to go all Minute Man about it. If Obama, Clinton or Reagan had vigorously supported it, he'd be against it to his dying day. If Nixon or Bush had supported, he wouldn't voice a peep.
Posted by: Ian McDowell | Oct 15, 2014 at 12:47 PM
Nah, I think his opposition is genuine and deeply held, not just political.
And for that reason I regret calling him out again in this post.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Oct 15, 2014 at 01:00 PM