What Fresh Hell Is This?

June 27, 2015

GIving Credit Where Credit Is Due

I'm normally good for a jab or two at the Tribune-Review (or at least their editorial board for whenever they botch the science) but simple fairness dictates that when they're on the right side of history that achievement should be applauded.

For perhaps if they hear the applause and if they get to like it, they'll spend a little more time amongst the rational and reasonable.

Today, they're on the right side of history.  Admittedly, they do it on their own terms, but still:
No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment on which the U.S. Supreme Court based its Friday decision to settle one of this nation's most contentious contemporary debates.

In a 5-4 ruling, with swing Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the court's four liberal brethren in providing the deciding vote and writing for the majority, the high court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. And thus “the law” has been forced to evolve to mirror contemporary mores and folkways.

Lest there be any confusion, we do not support this decision as any kind of ode to “progressive” living constitutionalism. To the contrary, the ruling represents a welcome advance on the path to the right to be let alone, a decidedly libertarian philosophy. [Italics in original.]
So for them the ruling is a victory for libertarianism.  Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.  Who cares?  In either case, for them it's settled:
Same-sex couples asked for not only equal treatment under the law but “for equal dignity in the eyes of the law,” Mr. Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Constitution grants them that right.” Period.
Well done, my friends.  Perhaps we'll spar again tomorrow (yea, we probably will) but for today you're on the right side of history.  And for that my hat is tipped.

Good for you.


Heir to the Throne said...

I hope the Soc Cons start calling the marriage between one man and one woman in a Church "Holy Unions".

It would be amusing to see the howls of protest from gay/LGBTXYZ activists and progressives that Holy Unions should apply to them.

Ol' Froth said...

No one would care if they called them holy unions, no special legal rights would attach.