Bigotry Prevails in California: Court Upholds Prop 8
Just moments ago, the California Supreme Court announced their decision to uphold Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage. The court was split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and were unanimous in allowing the validity for 18,000 gay couples who married before Prop 8 was passed.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George said that the November initiative was not an illegal constitutional revision, nor unconstitutional. Only one judge, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, wanted to strike down Proposition 8 as an illegal constitutional revision.
Before last fall, California was one of only two states to allow same-sex marriage. Since then, Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut and Maine have legalized it and bills are currently being considered in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and New York.
Wow, impressive California...looks like bigotry prevailed again. This IS 2009, right? Or is it 1959? I can't remember.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 10:31AM
Reader Comments (9)
Apparently we're stuck in the discriminatory vortex of the 1950's. It is a shame. Thank god the couples who are currently married can keep their licenses. I truly felt a broken heart when i heard the announcement. We won't give up. I know i wont. I dont think its fair that I have to go to another state just to get married! Legalizing hate isn't cool. :(
Sad.
This is very sad.
I guess those guys decided keeping their seats was more important than doing what they were put there to do in the first place...
Whatever. I call it bullshit.
The hypocrisy of those who voted for this never ceases to amaze me.
It is completely ridiculous, and I am apalled that in this day and age that this is even an issue. A bunch of misguided, hypocritical sheeple voted to tell the state who they can issue marriage licenses to. Most of them because "God" says it's the right thing to do. Pft.
If we are going to protect marriage, here are a few suggestions. I mean, really prop8 was about "protecting" that "holy" institution.. right? Okay, well let's throw some more stuff in there.
1) Irreconcilable differences no longer apply as a valid reason to get a divorce.
2) Being that the concept of marriage is owned by "God" Atheists cannot marry, their contract is worthless because they don't believe in him.
3) Because a divorce is a termination of a contract there should be an "early termination" fee if it lasts less than 5 years. Anything shorter should result in fines payable to the State. It is the State that issues the license for said contract, they should be compensated for that waste of paper.
4) Anyone that cannot produce offspring, cannot marry either. We all know the only reason people get married is to breed.
Hell, I can go on forever...
Yeah, let's protect marriage, it's for the children!
(as if divorce, isn't traumatic for some.. and hey some of those cihldren are actually gay.. we don't want to go putting ideas in their head about being honest with themselves about who they are, and about who they can choose to spend the rest of their lives with once they are old enough to decide.)
Every time I ask a Christian (I am one) who is against homosexuals, if they have a gay friend, so far, I have never been answered with "YES." It's always NO or "acquaintances". Wake up my Christian neighbors: Jesus never taught you to be such xenophobes. Sad that California, as a state, is so un-evolved.
Agreed, very very sad.
People are so shameful.
I'm looking forward to the day when religiously justified bigotry is but a tragic footnote in our history and we all coexist regardless of the differences.
Fuck the Ca. Supreme Court, Fuck their God, Fuck their Jesus and Fuck those who voted for this shit.
Time to let go of imaginary friends, time to stop being a country of hypocrites and time for FREEDOM for ALL.
I leave you with a few quotes from a man who is arguably the greatest orator in American history - Robert Ingersoll
"Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself."
"I am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample under foot."
"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane."