|San Francisco florists see opportunity|
But full equality is on the way, court or no court. As Linda Greenhouse says "reality has outpaced doctrine, and the court’s only role is to catch up."
When I do glance through the coverage, I can still be surprised by inane commentary coming from supposedly informed sources. In particular this, from Jeffery Toobin:
What Kennedy is saying -- and what Toobin passes on without correction -- is simply hogwash.
"Marriage" in the form Kennedy seems to be thinking about is maybe a couple of hundred years old. If that. Heterosexual pair bonds have obviously existed as long as there have been humans. We have ancestors. But these people organized themselves in all sorts of arrangements because "marriage" is a construct that people use to regulate kinship, economic and cultural relationships. In Kennedy's "millennia," "marriage" has frequently served dominant males to establish paternity and power -- and had little to do with either exclusive pair bonding or the wants of individual participants (especially female individuals.) Among the working strata of most human societies (and that's just about everyone) "marriage" has been a productive economic unit within which people toiled in separate (and usually unequal) spheres.
The cozy couples of Kennedy's imagination are mostly a modern western European invention. It's very human of us that we are inventing some additional forms.