The argument for Prop. 8 must be resisted for two reasons: First, because it gives the proposition a far broader discriminatory effect than its language warrants, and second, the proposition is oblivious to the differing faith practices of our citizens. Marriage is of religious origin; it should remain there. Indeed, neither the original court decision nor Prop. 8 showed adequate recognition of the religious nature of marriage, so Thursday's case can be a do-over.
Frankly, it was so convoluted that I hadn't the patience or brainpower to post anything intelligent. Thankfully, Carl Olson at Ignatius Insight Scoop has plenty of both. Following Kmiec's recommendations for how the court should word a "do-over," Olson comments, excerpt:
If I understand Kmiec and Saxer correctly, they are saying that the state should no longer use any language normally connected with marriage, including terms such as "marriage" and "married." The gratuitous assumption is that because marriage is supposedly of religious origin, in a civil order that legally distinguishes between state and church, there is no state interest or purpose in defining marriage as union between one man and one woman. But how does that follow?
It's a very good post with much more to say. Read it here.