Marriage and the Court: La Cage Aux Fools

It often seems as if clever lawyers become rich, careless lawyers become inmates, and confused lawyers become judges. And one certainly could get this impression when assessing the oral-arguments phase of the Proposition 8 case currently before the Supreme Court. The problem? With some rare exceptions, the arguments heard and questions posed ranged from the confused to the not-so-compelling. And no one really cut to the heart of the matter, which could have happened if a justice had just subjected the plaintiffs (pro-faux marriage/anti-marriage side) to a certain line of questioning, one that would have painted them into a corner. It goes something like this: Sir, some have pointed out that, just like anyone else, homosexuals should have a right to marry -- and already do. That is, they have a right to enter into a union with a member of the opposite sex, which accords with the definition of marriage. How do you respond to this argument? At this point, the plaintiffs will have to say,...(Read Full Article)