Thanks ever so for recognizing that:
"... an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
Something the majority of the moonbat, pottymouthed, treehugging, non-discriminatory Left have always understood.
Kisses,
LuLu
P.S. The fact that this perfectly sane ruling (btw, from a court where 6 of the 7 judges are Republican appointees) is sure to throw Teh Right into full-metal, spittle-flecked, Bible-thumping, fuckwit mode is just a bonus as far as this girl is concerned.
9 comments:
No, no, Lu lu.
Despite all appearances to the contrary, a great conservative wave is sweeping the nation, and teh hippies will die off.
God bless families.
'Activist judiciary thwarting the will of the people!'
'Activist judiciary thwarting the will of the people!'
'Activist judiciary thwarting the will of the people!'
oh, wait. They're Republicans?? Huh? Whatever shall we do?
Must be a sign o' the apocalypse.
When you think about it, the big bad Supreme Court that the US right is always going on has only had two people appointed to it by Democrats in the last 3 decades...
So the activist judges they are going on about are also Republicans...
I didn't realize that was the composition of on the bench, although I'd heard there were some conservatives on it. Heh. Sure enough Tony Perkins was on CNN last night whining about "activist" judges. So predictable.
Funny how whenever the judicary acts to ensure that the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of all Americans are respected it's judicial activism. Yet when one of these wingnuts gets a ruling in their favor that blatantly violates the Constitution - for example the whole BS with extraordinary rendition - that's just fine.
Asshats.
What pisses me off about this the most is that this ruling should never have been needed in the first place:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You will note that in neither of those two amendments is there any language that says: "Unless you're a fag."
So until someone amends this Constitution ( and they will do so over my dead body ) to equivocally state that we are not all equal and not all deserving of equal rights and protections under the law then none of these assholes on the right wing have any merit to their bullshit cases. The only reason to not allow GBLT people the right to marry is BIGOTRY plain and simple and any arguments to the contrary are bullshit.
Of course this case wouldn't have happened if the Governator hadn't twice vetoed marriage legislation on the pretext that the court should decide on marriage, not the legislature.
To his credit, he is accepting the ruling and will not support a constitutional amendment.
However, I am 95% certain that if the measure to ban it makes it to the ballot it will pass
This and the announcement that Ontario will cover transsexual surgeries have both generated a heapin' helpin' of hatred over at the CBC site. There's a few sane ones, but mostly you've got folks who are railing against both because they're, well, icky!
Reality Bites: Don't be so 95% sure. Recall that in Arizona--which is a haven of right wing wingnuttery--in 2006 an amendment failed. Okay there was no gay marriage looming, but California's not Arizona.
That said, the amendment process is stupid. Constitutions are supposed to be tough things to change. Here in CA, it's actually conceptually easier to do that than to get a bill passed--you just have to get a certain number of signatures, then put it to a vote, 50%+1 wins. To pass a bill, it has to make it through the Legislature and the Senate, facing fillibusters, and then the Governor has to sign off.
The ruling is great and sad: it's a great great feeling (I'm a Canadian living in LA, and have always thought I'd eventually have to leave my life here if I wanted to be married to my man), but at the same time, the torrent of hateful bile that is spewing out reminds you there are a lot of horrible people out there.
Post a Comment