Excellent! Such good news today!
Note that the ban was upheld by the smallest of margins: a 5-4 vote.
Another reminder of the importance of electing conservatives judges or electing representatives who will appoint conservative judges.
I'm shocked.
Pleasantly, but I'd about given up on the Court to do the right thing here.
Sanity BUMP!
HIP! HIP! HOORAY!
It's an election year and there are some consrvatives challenging liberal incumbents on the court. Politics as usual.
Great post, goodnesswins. Great news.
One local TV newscaster said that 45 states have now enacted similar bans or have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. (Jean Enersen must be gagging. hehe) But the US Senate still refuses to put this forward as a Constitutional amendment.
Oh well, one way or t'other, righteousness is taking hold.
The Washington State Supreme Court upheld a "ban on gay marriage" today, stating that only the legislature has the power to define marriage; e.g. as a union between a man and woman.
I will find a good article on this and post it..
While I applaud the court's ruling, I point out that we have already conceded far too much in our simple usage of the bogus term "gay marriage".
The mere use of the term is a de facto admission that what is not possible is, nevertheless, a point to be contested; like arguing about the legality of walking on the surface of the Sun. Nobody can 'marry' two individuals of the same sex, it is a physical and psychological impossibility, but that hasn't stopped the terminally absurd from happening; people attepmting to use the Law to force what cannot be done to be done anyway.
Only a male and a female can 'marry'; obviously in the physical sense, and -- though less obviously -- perhaps more importantly, in the psychological sense.
If you oppose so-clled 'gay marriage' then quit using the term; it is utter nonsense, and continued usage can have only deleterious results.
In sum: If it IS 'gay' it ISN'T 'marriage'. Period.
Sounds like they upheld reality in regards to "same-sex marriage." There ain't no such thing.
ping
Now on to the rollback of 50 years of leftist judicial activism that has illegally rewritten our Constitution. BUMP
But... but... I thought we needed to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent courts from overturning these laws? (/sarcasm)
They can always move to messichoosits.
Susan Owens needs to be voted out. We should get behind
Stephen Johnson for Justice Position #2. Jeanette Burrage has filed to run against Tom Chambers in position #9. Although, she is a former King County Superior Court Judge, she has a conservative history as a former Republican state representative and a property rights advocate. She caused some controversy in 1999 when as Superior Court Judge she asked woman lawyers to wear skirts in her courtroom. Her chances seem slim because the MSM would ridicule her, but she would be a much better judge than Chambers.