The judge has to work within the context of the law -- when they don't, they run the risk of creating law, and that's never a good thing. Equal protection for the concept of 'marriage', as the state defines it, means even gay people can marry opposite genders.
The problem is with 'marriage' as an institution and definition, and not with rights. You wanna fix that, you've gotta change the rules of the game. Judges can't do that.
I think his ruling was just snarky enough to force legislative action, personally. That's a pretty good trick.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 02:12 pm (UTC)The problem is with 'marriage' as an institution and definition, and not with rights. You wanna fix that, you've gotta change the rules of the game. Judges can't do that.
I think his ruling was just snarky enough to force legislative action, personally. That's a pretty good trick.