In repsonse to Justonevoice's first post at the very top:

I must aggree that this may seem a double edged sword for Judge Kellogg. One State recognizes a standard and another does not. But what will happen if all states begin regognizing other state's decitions? These individual decisions, such as the 2004 vote to maintain traditional marriage, are what make each individual state a "state", a specific public power within a sovereign political entity. Each state looks through it's own pair of glasses,if you will, different prescriptions fitting different needs of the specific populace within. Should California conform their state system to the generally more conservative Missouri system any more than Missouri should conform to Massachusett's? I think not. It goes both ways people. It suddenly becomes a huge mess if we apply the Kay Madden methodology.

This two-way methodology not only applies to legal philosophy, but also to JUSTONEVOICE'S poor analysis of the homosexual-marriage debate. Apparently "closed minded, fearful" people express "gender bias", but love doesn't. Well, both the prosecutor and defendent would have to dissagree with this statement, seeing as they are filing for a DIVORCE. This does not entirely prove my point, I understand, but beyond a case that weekens JUSTONEVOICE'S claim tremendously, there remains little if any evidence in support of the fact that love can or can't discriminate. Last time I checked, love was not some indipendent being that floated arround and decided to infect humans; it is a contious decition or rather a string of contious decisions a person makes in dealing with another. I love my dog, but not because love chose me to love it.

Further, "Freedom" and "Equality" are cited as supreme and even idealistic concepts for our country in support of gay-marriage, but to what extent? If freedom is not limited, then why do we have a justice system that punishes child molestors and murderer's that are simply expressing their freedom? Nothing. We can easily then come to the conclution that freedom is never freedom if it has no ends, it becomes vice. Our job is not to expand the uses of freedom indefinitely, but rather to cyphen out the good and bad uses of it and decide which should be supplanted in society. To say that limitation of gay marriage is due to lack of freedom is skipping the real question. The real question isn't "would it make them more free?", it is "Will this freedom benefit or decay society?"

On Same-sex breakup perplexes courts

Page 1 of 1