Thursday, May 15, 2008

California Supreme Court to California Voters: "Screw You!"

I thought we had a vote on this. But our liberal judges know better than we do:

California's supreme court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.

In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.

The monkeys on California's Supreme Court

"... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

*"We don't really give a flying **** what California voters want or believe," George continued. "One of our duties as Supreme Court justices is to determine what is best for society, and our Stanford and Berkeley law degrees leave us much more qualified to make that determination than the voters." *

Great. Why bother voting anymore when a bunch of black-robed monkeys can simply overturn the will of our voters?

Now I guess the next question is whether the court will force our churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies.

*Paraphrased...sort of...from the majority opinion

Update: From, a little hope:

But the decision ... may not be the last word. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, a tally that is due by mid-June, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment.


Sue said...

If a church clergy can refuse to marry a couple based on the doctrine of the church, how would they be forced to marry a couple that is gay?

I ask this because I asked a pastor to marry me, and he said no, because I have a child out of wedlock. (We eventually eloped with a JP.) It was against their doctrine to wed us.

I wonder how this will affect the rest of the country.

Nigel said...

Good question, Sue. Actually, it might not have much effect at all until our US Supreme Court follows suit.

Then it's gay wedding cake for everyone!

Anyway, I can envision a scenario where a gay couple decides to challenge a church's doctrine...just to make a point. A church refuses to perform the ceremony and these 7 monkeys get to make another "landmark ruling".

lando_dot said...

Nice scare tactics Nigel but the court in this case did not make law, they interpreted the law on the books in light of their constitution. The courts historically have upheld the rights of religions to hold beliefs outside of the constitutional law, such as the Mormons ban on interracial marriages and giving priesthood to those of african descent until 1978 when the Mormon prophet declared he had a revelation from god.

Yiddish Steel said...

Call the Governator's Office: (916)445-2841. Tell this putz that it's over; we can recall him and recall these Judges.

Nigel said...

Lando...I don't know what "scare" tactic I used. I just simply pointed out that our Supreme Court has decided that the vote our state had that defined marriage as "one dude and one chick" is null and void.

Somehow that 5,000+ year tradition is now considered "discriminatory".

Some of us value marriage and don't want to see it desecrated. But if in fact "one dude and one chick" is discriminatory, I think I'll ask Sue to marry me.

I know she's already married, but if her husband is cool with it, why not? If we all decide to be married together, to deny us that right would be discriminatory as well.