The Supreme Court

S.F. Chronicle commentator, Debra Saunders, discusses the SCOTUS decision legalizing same sex marriage:

"The romantic in me rejoices. The lover of states’ — and voters’ — rights mourns. I cannot celebrate five judges imposing their view of marriage by fiat. I cannot ignore that Kennedy waited to do so until same-sex marriage was popular."

You most certainly can have mixed feelings about the decision.

******

Over at Reason magazine, Ira Stoll looks at recent decisions by the Supreme Court, responding to at least one comment suggesting abolishing it. By no means do I advocate that. I will differ with him at least in part. While he points out both good and bad decisions, at least from a libertarian perspective, he focuses on the positive. Seems to me the Court generally takes two steps backward for each one forward.

******

As far as consequences of the gay marriage decision, some see it as opportunities available in other areas. Over at lewrockwell.com, a fellow suggests the decision opens up the possibility of national concealed carry reciprocity.  What that means is if someone has a concealed weapons permit in one state, all the other states would have to honor it. 

Most on the Right- at least those involved in gun rights- would like that. The Left would generally hate it. As usual, I have mixed feelings. 

******

Late News: Some state officials in Texas are gearing up for a defense of religious freedom reports USA Today. They're encouraging county clerks to refuse issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples should they feel it goes contrary to their religious beliefs.

Hmmm??? The religious freedom conundrum, on which I generally side with those seeking that freedom. You would expect that to have me in a bind but, since this involves government officials, I'd say it makes it easy. Since they're expected to abide by state and federal law, I'd suggest they find another job if this part of it makes them uncomfortable.

Then again, I can't help but wonder if they'd have as big an issue with it if marriage licenses were called something else- civil contracts, civil unions, or whatever? But, as USA Today points out:

"Ultimately, it will come down to two fundamental rights – religious freedom granted explicitly in the Constitution, and same-sex liberties, which have been confirmed through previous court decisions – battling for precedence, she said.
"You have these two fundamental rights that are completely at odds with one another," Penrose said. "It will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide which right reigns supreme."

You have to wonder how they'd decide in a case like this?