Jonathan Rauch had a fascinating op-ed in the nyt.com this morning. He first acknowledges that his marriage to his partner, held in DC, magically dissolves every time he gets on the Metro and goes back to live in VA, in which his marriage is constitutionally banned.
In his summation of Ms. Kagan's remarks before the Senate Commission, he understands that Kagan struck a balance that will sting both sides of the debate:
In her testimony, Ms. Kagan described the Supreme Court as “a wondrous institution” and the democratic process as “often messy and frustrating.” She was right, as every veteran of a civil rights struggle can attest. But she was also right to say that the court should be “properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives.” If she can turn those platitudes into a jurisprudence that respects both gay equality and judicial modesty, she will be unpopular on both sides of the marriage debate — and correct.
The case in CA is moving toward the Supreme Court...saying a prayer and holding my breath.
Click here for more.
Be Brave, Brett
No comments:
Post a Comment