I’m pretty much entirely neutral about how marriage for same sex couples is legalized; our political system provides multiple pathways for working to bring about such change, and I’m not interested in pretending that some are inherently more ‘legitimate’ than others. You take the positive social change where you can get it. That said, I did find the popular victories of last November unusually satisfying, as they a) gave me the opportunity to feel warm and fuzzy about my fellow citizens, and b) badly punctured on of the most cherished narratives of the bigots.
On the other hand: social change via the courts is not without its charms. In particular: our opponents are forced to attempt to make actual, non-BS arguments for denying gays and lesbians equal rights. As various strategies fail, the arguments are getting increasingly bizarre, which contributes to the all-important task of discrediting these fools. A report on legal strategies in California:
WASHINGTON — Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can “produce unplanned and unintended offspring,” opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court.
By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, “substantial advance planning is required,” said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans.
This unusual defense of traditional marriage was set out last week in a pair of opening legal briefs in the two gay marriage cases to be decided by the Supreme Court this spring.