Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:02:45 PM
In an unsurprising move, the California Supreme Court refused to stay its own ruling extending marriage licensing to non-marriages so that people will feel better about their personal choices and feelings. Some groups had asked them to hold things off until California voters decide in November on an amendment to the state constitution on the issue.
Strangely, the very same people who claimed that the court should "operate independently of the legislative process" and thus not consider that there will be a vote in November seem to have no problem with the court interfering in the legislative process by striking down a law without solid justification. This must be one of those areas where a “wall of separation” only goes one way in their minds?
Now, if the voters of California vote to restore marriage licensing to historic standards favoring societal interest, there will be an outcry from those who get “no gender mentioned” marriage licenses for their non-marriages between now and then. Well, there would have been an outcry anyway, but this particular outcry will be something along the lines of “How dare you invalidate our marriage?” To which I will reply “We never consented to issue you a license in the first place!” We should not need an amendment. It is they who should have needed an amendment to impose such a radical shift on society.
They all know full well that this vote is coming, so they’ll have no excuse.
Actually, it is probably what they want. This is why:
Leftists don’t respect authority, though they love to use it as a tool to force their way. They never ask permission – they simply go ahead until someone forces them to stop. Like when they want to show your kid sexually explicit material, hand them condoms, and take them for abortions. So they will go ahead and acquire marriage licenses for brideless or groomless “marriages”. Then, immediately after the November vote, should it go our way, they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and keep issuing/acquiring/using the licenses. SCOTUS will be a lot less likely to let California’s amendment stand if there are already “marriages” licensed that go against the amendment. They will be even less likely to invalidate those marriage licenses issued in the interim. It would be much easier for SCOTUS to uphold the California amendment if the California Supreme Court’s decision had been stayed until then. The California Supreme Court is deliberately trying to sabotage the amendment.
Here is a link to the piece by Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Maura Dolan. Again, the headline uses the inaccurate phrase “gay marriage”. There is no requirement now, nor will there be, about sexual orientation, so the term "gay marriage" is an incorrect description.
The California Supreme Court today rejected a petition to delay its historic same-sex [“]marriage[“] decision, deciding 4-3 that gay people may [“]marry[“] later this month.
Again, gay people have always been able to “marry” each other. Also, a gay person has always had the very same access to licensed marriage as I have, even if he or she didn't want to exercise that access. I detest sloppy reporting.