“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”
Unhinged groups and those with questionable morals immediately expressed outrage by stamping their feet on the ground, by holding their breath and by threatening to run away.
I didn't rejoice. You think I'm not normal? And does that mean that anyone who does not agree with you are not normal? Guess you have been reading too many right wing blogs, because that is what you always accuse us wing nuts of saying.
ReplyDeleteThe post was targeted at our mutual friend, dad29 (follow the "questionable morals" link). He had a post about normal people being screwed by this decision.
ReplyDeleteSo now I guess I should ask the question to you: "Do you consider me abnormal?"
Don't answer that. :)
AB-normal!
ReplyDeleteI forget what my bloodtype is.
ReplyDelete