"Gay couple John Lewis, left, and Stuart Gaffney celebrate outside the California Supreme Court on Thursday." Wait till divorces start. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
“Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a
man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In
addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the
constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.”
It would be nice to be able to blame this on an extremely liberal court, but in truth the CA Supreme Court is actually very conservative nowadays.
If the legislature now strikes “between a man and a woman” and does not replace it with something like “between one human and another” things will get interesting.
And Sanda Day says it is wrong to target supreme court judges and all judges even if they make very stupid decisions?
These clowns need to be taken to the public square and held in stocks and have rotten veggies thrown at them at the very least.
Of course this also means that they also back Gay Divorce along with all of the love and joy associated with it.
I wonder what the stats are on how many gay marriages end in divorce.
What about prop 22? 60% said no to homosexual marriage.
What good is the ballot?
Ya’ know...I truly don’t care that there are homosexuals in our world, our Country, or our State.
I really, and honestly do not care if they “do” each other all day long, and into the night...in the privacy and BEHIND the closed doors and curtained windows of their abode. It bothers me, not in the least.
My problem is my Constitutionally guaranteed right to pursue happiness has been abrogated by a Court in favor of the homosexuals’. And that ain’t right.
I have lived 55 years abiding by the Constitution, and the cultural traditions of this Country that we’ve had since, even before, it’s founding. And now, I’m forced into relinquishing my right to appease this minority group of immoral, unclean, unsafe, tools of satan.
Worse, I’m forced to pay for it, and I’m NOT even ALLOWED to voice my opinion in public; Or to or within earshot of, the object(s) of my discomfort, lest I be arrested and charged with hatred, which of course, is immoral also, but is made a crime by the same appeasers that force me to subjugate my happiness and rights to the more immoral minority filth and disease spreaders. And as a fine how do you do, kick in the pants, to top it all off, our children are being taught that their parents are bad people, and the same sexers, homesexual knee benders, are righteous and, gee whiz, just good, decent folks!
I think it’s time us Texans just close all borders surrounding Texas: the Mexico southern border and the U.S. north, east, and west borders.
It was a nice ride U.S.A. but it’s just getting too blue out yonder.
And to think, people once made light of folks that married a cousin, and today condemn polygamy, while allowing the most disgusting, disease-ridden, subpopulation on the planet to legitimize their deviant behavior. Just as in ancient Rome, homosexuals will quickly access young boys, demanding leadership and access positions in the Boy Scouts. Already they enter schools to groom the little boys for what homosexuals have to offer—a version of the Will and Grace show.
OK guys, Bill Gates is mine. No prenups, no long courting period, bring it to me Bill. Did I say no prenup?
If he’ll have me.
The Republic continues to slip on a banana peel in slow motion.
“Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a
man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In
addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the
constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.
Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in
this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.”
The cultural jihad of the left continues.
Robert Bork was right.
Californians are going to regret this deeply when a huge percentage of their budget starts going for AIDS care and treatment.
Were Californians misguided to belief that voting on a proposition would be the best way to reflect majority will concerning one man, one woman-only marriage when they should have directed their efforts to having their constitution amended?