The Seattle Times opines that the US Supreme Court needs to
overturn unilaterally the votes of millions of citizens in states that uphold
marriage as between a man and a woman.
Why not let the people of each state decide? The editors offer no
legal or logical arguments--only advocacy buzzwords like "marriage
equality," "discrimination" and "chosen love over outdated
notions of marriage."
Neither love nor law mandates equal access to every
government-sanctioned institution.
Is age "inequality" inherent in the Constitutional
requirement that only individuals 35 or older may serve as president, or the
fact that no state allows children to vote?
Are public school policies "discriminatory" that
segregate by gender male and female locker rooms?
Doesn't "choosing love over outdated notions of marriage"
require legalizing marriages of five people who love each other, or of a man
and his beloved poodle, or of loving cousins or any other imaginable combination
based merely on a subjective emotional bond?
Absent an objective, biologically based definition of marriage as
between a man and a woman, a union uniquely designed to provide a
gender-balanced home for children, marriage soon means nothing at all.
