Protecting a religious tradition not in the Constitution. Civil aspects of marriage a government function offering legal rights.

While the right wing bigots give every excuse in the book why a gay judge shouldn't have decided this case, even thought straight judges preside over traditional marriages, conservative attorney Ted Olsen and liberal attorney David Boies break down the simple nature of the ruling...equality. Rachel Maddow conducts the interview.



The constitution says nothing about protecting tradition. The constitution says nothing about marriage. The constitution does require equal protection. Simple.

Marriage is a civil, governmental function, bringing with it certain legal rights. The choice of couples is perform that ceremony in a church, with the religious head of that church acting as a surrogate facilitator of the paper work. I'm only going by memory here, so correct me if I'm off on the church function processing the paper work.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Religious Right's & the Rabid Right's Response to the Overturning of Prop 8 (mydd.com)
• Sally Kohn: Prop 8: Let's Get Rid Of Marriage Instead! (huffingtonpost.com)
• Kyle Daley: Marriage Equality: One Step Forward (huffingtonpost.com)
• Is Marriage a Civil Right? (learning.blogs.nytimes.com)