tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614841571339583501.post3377694511637268661..comments2023-11-02T08:17:49.134+00:00Comments on Law and Sexuality: Hollingsworth v Perry: US Supreme Court RulesChris Ashfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12071159399124287824noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614841571339583501.post-60161046721727417022010-01-14T16:56:37.493+00:002010-01-14T16:56:37.493+00:00Thanks for the comment Larry. To be honest it was...Thanks for the comment Larry. To be honest it wasn't my intention in this brief post to set forth 'substantive' reasons. If I were to do so, I could do no better than Justice Breyer who works through each of the arguments in favour of the ban and notes: 'This case, in my view, does not satisfy a single one of these standards, let alone all of them.' You can't be any clearer than that.<br /><br />Such is the political nature of the Supreme Court that these decisions are inevitably as much about symbolism as substance. It is (as J.Breyer notes) because of the symbolic nature and popular interest of Perry that there are very good reasons why it should have been televised. The reason activists on both sides are so worked up over all aspects of Perry is because the symbolic effect of the decision (either way) will be almost as powerful as the practical substantive impact.Law & Sexualityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12343173411234187478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614841571339583501.post-75491579662595380712010-01-14T16:22:01.622+00:002010-01-14T16:22:01.622+00:00I disagree with the decision too, but your argumen...I disagree with the decision too, but your arguments opposing it are a straw dog. If the ruling went the other way, this article could be reprinted by simply changing places with the term conservative with liberal by the other side. We need arguments that are substantive, not symbolic.Larry Everetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08063566857068808071noreply@blogger.com