ACLU: Judges Gave Us a Gift

15 05 2008

Filed under: California, Homosexuality, Same-sex Marriage, Liberalism, Marriage

In California, four judges think they are smarter, better, more tolerant, more intellectual, and more advanced than 4,618,673 citizens of their state. By a 4-3 vote this afternoon, the breathingist judges struck down a law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman adopted in 2000 by 61% of California voters called Proposition 22. Here is the full opinion (pdf).

Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall.

It’s one thing when voters in a state overwhelmingly deny a state marriage amendment. Oh wait, that’s never happened before. They’ve all passed, except Arizona last year which narrowly lost because of some language technicalities that independent voters weren’t comfortable with. Even Oregon and Hawaii have succeeded. California had as well. But not if four breathingist, elitist judges can help the matter. Is it any wonder that it was in California that Snob-ama delivered his not-yet-but-will-be-soon famous “cling to religion and guns” speech?

Liberty Counsel, which argued in favor of the marriage laws, released a statement indicating California residents will now need to work overtime to re-gain their rights:

California residents have submitted petitions to place a state constitutional marriage amendment on the November ballot. If the requisite number is certified in the next few weeks, California voters will have the opportunity to amend their state constitution so that it expressly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Such an amendment is necessary to protect marriage from being undermined by a mere majority of four justices of the California Supreme Court.

The ACLU acknowledges that the court gave them this gift, thereby admitting that it is NOT the will of the majority of the people:

Even more important, the rest of the country recognizes that California is America’s cultural trendsetter, that cultural change in California is usually a preview of what is to come in the rest of the United States. Most Americans already believe that marriage for same-sex couples is bound to happen sooner or later. I think marriage in California will help persuade many of them that this is an issue of basic fairness, and that the time for it is now

“It might happen” doesn’t mean they support same-sex marriage. 27 states have already spoken clearly on the issue. I don’t think four judges are going to suddenly change millions of minds. Hysterical. ROFL!!!!!

Now, of course, we have to hold on to it. It appears fairly certain that anti-gay forces have gotten enough signatures to put on the November ballot an initiative that would amend the state Constitution and overrule the decision.

That initiative is scary. We lost a different vote on marriage only eight years ago. And our opponents, recognizing that marriage in California is a great prize, will fight with all their might. Which means that to win, we’ll have to raise a great deal of money and run a very smart campaign.

Socialist translation: We can’t convince the majority of voters to support us, so we’ll need to force our will on them, just like we did today.

Here’s the kicker:

No more will our opponents be able to call marriage the child of “activist judges” or out-of-control local officials. The court has given us the chance to win marriage for ourselves, and push the fight for full equality ahead by years.

So, the court has given you the opportunity to win the gold medal. A gift in your hands. If you defeat the will of a vast majority of Californians, then it won’t be from activist judges. So, by default, the ACLU admits this decision IS a result of activist judges. Thank you, ACLU, for this gem of political hypocrisy.

Others: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Ed Morrissey.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

9 responses

6 06 2008
California Supreme Court Continues to Defy Citizens « What Is Your Worldview?

[…] California Supreme Court denied the Petition for Stay (pdf), filed by Liberty Counsel. The May 15 decision will become law on June 16, […]

6 06 2008
California Supreme Court Continues to Defy Citizens « Truth and Reason

[…] California Supreme Court denied the Petition for Stay (pdf), filed by Liberty Counsel. The May 15 decision will become law on June 16, 2008. Gay couples in California rushed to set wedding dates Wednesday […]

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

Any time the People have their say, Libtards/Libzis worry, and THAT’s why they run, cryin’ and whinin’, shoppin’ around the a sympathetic judge to take up their Cause and thwart the vote of the People.

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

In Kahleeforneeah, the vote by the People for the amendment will nullify the state supreme court’s ruling, and SCOTUS will have to agree with that.

Even though the court rejected a stay of its ruling, everybody still has to wait for November for the final say of the People, and SCOTUS will, then, after the People reject the court’s ruling, have to say that all those phony “marriages” will have to be annulled. I’d buy a ticket to see the look on the faces of those who claim to be homosexual.

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

Will THEY vote for, or against, the Amendment?

8 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

These guys http://thumbsnap.com/v/8RdiRNlA.jpg are gonna have-ta unhook themselves from each other before they can go and vote.

8 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

They’s gonna have to unhook themselves from each other’s whatevers before they can go ‘n’ vote.

13 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

Just something I thought about today…

Nowhere in any law, nor amendment, does it say that the man has to be heterosexual to marry a woman who is not required to be heterosexual.

So, where’s the discrimination, unless there is a third sex that is not considered?

30 07 2008
Our Work Cut Out for Us « Truth and Reason

[…] some outside it) to be intolerant of any worldview contradictory of their own. After four judges gave the left a gift in May and legalized gay marriage, activists attempted to have a marriage amendment taken off the […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: