California can’t make up its mind. They scare away conservatives (i.e. big business) by ratcheting up taxes and regulations, and then scare away gays by telling them (unlike in other states) that they aren’t welcome here. Pretty soon there won’t be anybody left… there already aren’t enough left to keep our state from going into the red (fiscally, not politically – although that may happen if enough things like this keep happening).
The ruling today was an obvious short term politically motivated “verdict.” By (default) declaring gay marriage illegal – but the previous marriages legal the court makes it abundantly clear that they’re caving to their republican/conservative/religious masters, while leaving the matter open for later for courageous courts to fix. If there was something deeply wrong with gay marriage the court wouldn’t have upheld the existing marriages that took place up until November 8th of last year.
If gay marriage was wrong, and damaged society (as the Mormons allege) we’d annul the marriages that happened between May and November to prevent this damage from occurring.
This is also a travesty because now there will be an anti-prop 8 for us to vote on “as early as next year” wasting a ton of taxpayer money…and then another prop 8 from the Mormons to counter that two years later… So the court basically said “uh.. the people that pad our wallets (the court is 86% republican/conservative) need us to do this…but…tell ya what… since we’re making voting decisions the rule of law – you can VOTE gay marriage back into law if you want….” Of course this sets up a ludicrous system where our state could possibly have gay marriage voted in for two years…then out for two years…then in for two years…etc. Or at least until the US Supreme Court establishes that gay marriage is legal (which it will).
And if you think I’m being a “silly liberal” (I’m not liberal by the way), consider that the court decided along “party lines” 6-1 on the constitutionality of the amendment – but was UNANYMOUS in upholding the legality of existing marriages. Read between the lines here… it isn’t hard… Ruling that the marriages should be annulled would have made a moral judgement on homosexuality. Ruling along party lines on the constitutionality of the amendment essentially lets the Supreme Court highlight a technicality and wash its hands of the whole thing and throw it back to the voters (again…). Turning it from a judgement on gay marriage to a judgement on the ability of the populous to make constitutional amendments affecting certain classes of people.
And, to use the conservatives argument – this leaves the ballot box open to make amendments like “murder is legal” or “Women can’t live in California” or any number of ridiculous things that “52%” of Californians might vote as an amendment. All it takes apparently would be a TV commercial convincing all the gullible California voters that (gasp!) their child might be taught by a Woman (and some dark clouds) and then a pastor saying that “I might have to let a woman into my church and sit the pews!” and BAM – Women aren’t allowed in California.
“oh no, that wouldn’t happen because Women are recognized by the state as a protected class of people”
So are gays…. “The California Supreme Court is the only state high court in the nation to have elevated sexual orientation to the status of race and gender. . .” Starting to see why this is a scary verdict? Convince more men to go out and vote on a proposition than women and you can ban women from California. … or do anything you want.
by the way, saying an amendment is different than a revision.. totally weak.
Amendment: A correction or alteration
Revise: To reconsider and change or modify
So if I amend the California Constitution to declare me the ruler of the Universe that is okay, after all, I didn’t revise the constitution, I just altered it… not modified it… because you know, modify and alter are totally not synonyms…. I wonder if they’re planning to change the California textbooks to reflect this change to the English language.
“Convince more men to go out and vote on a proposition than women and you can ban women from California. … or do anything you want.”
—well, yeah. That’s the whole purpose of law–control. English law did not arise from the good feelings the king had for his subjects. Marriage is a contract (under law) and is used for the common good i.e.–produce tax payers (or cannon fodder). That’s the purpose for the tax “breaks”.
Why do people marry?
Is homosexual marriage mallum in se or mallum prohibitum (or non-existant)?
The answer to your last question depends on who you ask. Christians would argue it is malum in se. In the real world it is malum prohibitum.
I don’t think people marry for the tax benefits or for procreation anymore (did you see the new average that the majority of hispanic females have at least one child by the age of 18?). They do it as a symbol of their commitment (ironic since more than half end up divorced).
By the way – in my not very humble opinion – it is the proper raising of a child that produces a good tax payer. I can think of more than a few of my classmates who had bad parenting and ended up not paying a lot of taxes (because they earn a low income), whereas the stereotype of gay/lesbian adoptive parents is one of being well off and instilling in their children the value of education.
Crapping out a kid can create a taxpayer burden or a tax boon to the state… depending on the parenting. Ah, but all heterosexual marriages are a breeding ground for good parenting, right? And Homosexual “unions” raising adopted children are statistically likely to end up criminals. Oh wait, that was single mothers… oops.
Money, its a crime.
Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise its no surprise that they’re
Giving none away.
Looks like the good people of California figured out that the supply of other peoples money has run out–therefore it would be a good thing to keep the other hog’s trotters out of the feed supply. Thats what this is really about; redefining a word’s meaning gives you power.
What the hell is a step-grandparent? I see that word in the paper all the time but there is no logic behind the defination.
A 12 year old girl might want to be called “Princess Rose Popular” but she is still Jane to everybody else.
Lurkers???
The lawyers who argued against each other in Bush v. Gore in 2000 are teaming up to argue in front of the US district court against prop 8 (with the hopes it will go to the supreme court). It is happening sooner than I imagined. Obviously this is partially motivated by these guys just wanting to be in the limelight again – but at least this time it is for a good cause. Who would have thought Darth Vader’s lawyer (or technically Darth Vader’s little buddy’s lawyer) would join with the rebel alliance?
Supremes will turn their back on this one. Look how long it took to get a 2nd. amendement case up–they still slid out of an absolute ruling on basics. (lets be clear on this :I don’t care if anyone wants to do what they want to do. I just don’t want them to (Judge Judy) “Piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining”. Call a spade a spade–oh wait, thats——-cardist?
sort of unclear what you’re saying. Is the part in parenthesis your opinion or the supreme court’s? And if it takes 5 cases for them to stop turning their backs, at least we’re getting started now.
AAACCCCKKKK–see below
Supremes will turn their back on this one. Look how long it took to get a 2nd. amendement case up–they still slid out of an absolute ruling on basics.
Lets be clear on this :I (DJ) don’t care if anyone wants to do whatever they want to do. I (DJ) just don’t want them to -quoting Judge Judy- “Piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining”.
Call a spade a spade–oh wait, thats——-cardist?
FIFY
They (supremes) don’t have to hear a case they don’t want to hear.