I often wonder what strategies could be developed to break the unmerited and excessive deference the public shows to courts. How about dropping the word "judges" and speaking only of "lawyers"?

I too read this item this morning, and will post about it. Whatever one thinks of Buchanan's writings, and whatever one thinks of the gay marriage issue, his main point that judicial overreach is way overdue for pruning back is completely correct. Since when do courts get to tell legislatures what specific laws to pass, on how quickly to do it? Why don't they just get it over with and write the legislation themselves?

Of course, the mass media is nearly silent on this point ....

I would like very much to have some sort of a legal recognition of my relationship so that there is no question on inheritance, medical decisions, and other such. (Then again, why is the state involved in what is, after all, a religiously based part of the life cycle)?

However, I feel the Mass court GREATLY overstepped their bounds in this one. Spouting diktats to the state legislature is right out of any sense of reason or proportion.

Surprise, folks: one of "them" is 100% on your side with this issue

bear:

Any gay person who cares about constitutionalism would have to oppose the court's over reach. It's not surprising at all. What is surprising is that putatively conservative gays would place themselves above constitutionalism.

The real problem is that marriage has become another gov't entitlement. One where people are entitled to exemptions from various taxes like inheritance, or cross subsidization on things like employer paid health plans. A few grew out of the emancipation of women (joint ownership replacing the man owning everything and the woman nothing), but most of them were added politicians needing a way to buy middle class voters with goodies. Even now, most of them can be handled by non-married people if they bother to take the time to investigate and act upon their options. (Wills, powers of attorney, trust funds, contracts, etc.) But it's easier to just whine about how unfair thing are and demand that a few unelected judges do things my way, the consequences be damned.

If the courts aren't there to protect against tyranny of the majority, then what will?

Here in Ohio the Supreme Court ordered the legislature to change school funding. The legislature put a penny increase in the sales tax on the next ballot, which was soundly rejected. There after the legislature stone walled the Court. After 5 opinions the court closed the case.

I think the Massachusttes legislature should do likewise.

Jeff:

If a constitutional right is not involved, there is no tyranny.

The Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) were not being addressed by the Mass. Court.

So who is tyrannizing whom?

Tyranny of the majority isn't a greater threat than tyranny of the minority.

The Boston Globe did a poll which showed that 50% of Massachusettsians agree with the court, with 38% opposed.
Why not let more liberal states, such as Vermont, Mass., Hawai'i, Nevada, Cali., Oregon, Washington, et al., have gay marriage, or unions, and let everyone else refuse to recognize such ?
Everyone can live where they feel most comfortable.

'Course, eventually, the Feds will have to adjust the tax codes to recognize the new arrangements, but that's a technicality.

Also, this issue breaks hard across generational lines, so if one agrees with gay marriage, one option is simply to live long enough.

Raoul:

Having such documents and agreements definitely is a good idea, but families have challenged wills and other contracts in court, and won, leaving the grieving partner with no recourse.
Also, it doesn't at all address the issue of potentially being forced to testify against one's partner.

Jeff:

You have said elsewhere you don't favour legal polygamy. I trust, however, you would have no objection to your state Supreme Court ordaining it and giving you a pep talk on how you should be more tolerant of people who are different than you.

Michael:

You may be right that the age differential will make it all moot when we old foggies die off, but there is another explanation, which is that views on this issue tend to change with the arrival of children.

A newspaper poll is not the will of the majority.
Not everyone is Mass lives in Boston or reads
the Globe. The people spoke through a ballot
initiative and it was put off by the legislature.

In that instance the will of the majority was
blatantly disregarded.

Peter:

I think what I really said was polygamy is too complex to boil down to a few simple sentences.

My bet is that in our society, where female mate selection is significant, and where virtually all men have sufficient material means, it just doesn't matter what the law says, since it prohibits what wouldn't happen anyway. Do you think there would be a stampede to polygamy if the legal barriers were raised?

So I just don't care one way or the other about polygamy laws.

How much do you believe in separation of Church and State? Polygamy is God's law in some isolated enclaves in a certain western state.

If you are so certain that certain passages in the Bible regarding homosexuality are straight from God's mouth, then what about God's law in Utah?

You wouldn't want to be having it both ways, would you?

Jeff:

Heck, no. If it is divine law in certain isolated enclaves of a western state, we will all have to make room for it won't we? I mean, goose, goose, goose, goose, gander, right?