COURT CUTS BABY IN HALF
GRANOLA STATE SUPREMES CUT OFF GAY MARRIAGE
"SOLOMONIC" DECISION PLEASES NO ONE, ANGERS EVERYONE
Human Rights Still Unacceptable in California, Sorta, Kinda, Maybe, Who Knows?
In a boon for lawyers in the formerly Golden, now Plate State, the California State Supreme Court has opened the door to thousands of lawsuits over their latest muddled ruling on homosexual marriage. Same-sexers who have not yet married in Cali will never be able to do so now; those already married there may remain married, but never remarry; and the rest of the world does not have to recognize their marriages, nor will California recognize out-of-State gay marriages.
This is the same Court that just OK'ed gay marriage last year. This whale-sized flip-flop has astounded observers, as it appears to contradict everything the Court just said about marriage a year ago. Today, they've made it unimportant, but still denied it to gays. If it's so unimportant, why bother to deny it? If it is important, how can you deny it to one special class of people, legally? And what about tomorrow?
The SCOCA has also opened a Pandora's box of propositions. Ever since right-wing nuts began imposing their destructive preferences upon the rest of Cali by means of ill-attended and misunderstood ballot initiatives, the ideal of freedom and prosperity for everyone that the Bear Republic once represented to the world has gradually been lost. The State no longer offers the educational opportunities it once did. Public services and infrastructure are suffering from neglect. Good jobs have been flowing outward for years, while jobless people continue to flood inward. Property owners were told they simply didn't have to pay for all the wonderful things that made California golden. Now they can't even pay their bills. But the High Court says it's all good, State Constitutional Amendments aren't really "Amendments," in law. They're just, um, well, er, amendments with a small "a." So the basic law of the land there is now written on Silly-Putty, and can be twisted by wealthy out-of-State fanatics and special interests to mean whatever they want, whenever they want. Again, a lawyers wet-dream. Everyone and everything will end up in a court system that refuses to make decisions and stick to them. Venue-shopping? No need! Just try the same judge again next year. Everything will end up in Federal Court, eventually, and perpetually. So, what are your rights in Kolleefahneeya? I don't know, what day is it? Gotta check the paper. SoCal & NoCal folks might all be illegal aliens, today. Or not. Consult your attorney. If you can afford one.
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
"California Supreme Court upholds ban on gay marriage in 6-1 vote"
' Ending a six-month legal battle and instantly igniting the next political fight, the California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage, but left intact the unions of gay and lesbian couples who wed last year. In a definitive 6-1 decision that cheered opponents of gay marriage, the justices said they would be overstepping their authority if they were to overturn the constitutional ban voters enacted Nov. 4. In the same ruling, the court established a two-tiered system of marriage for same-sex couples that seemed bound to satisfy no one. Gay marriage advocates vowed Tuesday to take the fight to "win marriage back" to California voters in 2010. With same-sex marriage now legal in Iowa, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut, supporters say they have momentum after a "sea change" of public opinion in recent months. '
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
"Proposition 8 ruling: separate and unequal"
Legalistic horsesh*t from a bunch of cowardly lawyers guarantees chaos & discrimination in California.
' In reading the opinion, it was almost hard to imagine that it was produced by the same court that so eloquently affirmed the principle of marriage equality in May. Chief Justice Ronald George, then writing for the majority in a 4-3 ruling, had declared that all Californians should enjoy "a fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." The latest ruling focused on more technical legal issues, namely whether Proposition 8 represented an "amendment" to the constitution (permissible through the initiative process) or a more substantial "revision" that could be put to voters only through a constitutional convention or a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Curiously, the conclusion that Prop. 8 amounted to a mere "amendment" - and not a change in the basic nature of the constitution, as opponents had argued - required the justices to downplay the importance of marriage. This time, George suggested that domestic partnerships and anti-discrimination laws offer same-sex couples the "same substantive core benefits" as their heterosexual counterparts. The justices acknowledged that Prop. 8 does "diminish the rights of same-sex couples," but not so drastically that it would produce a "sweeping constitutional effect." It was up to Justice Carlos Moreno, the sole dissenting voice, to rise above the thicket of legalese and capture the essence of the issue. To allow a majority of voters to deprive one minority group of its rights is to put "at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities," he wrote '
SAN DIEGO NEWS NETWORK
"Local leaders on both sides of Prop 8 dispute react to ruling"
So, "inalienable" means "able to be withdrawn or restricted," in Lalaland, now.
' Garlow, however, anticipates legal challenges to the state’s existing same-sex marriages. In June, before voters passed Proposition 8, proponents of the ballot measure were denied a stay of the high court’s May 2008 ruling, which overturned Proposition 22, the state’s existing ban on gay marriage, and paved the way for same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex couples began marrying last summer, and were allowed to marry until 52 percent of voters approved the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Nov. 4. Proposition 8 supporters fear the Supreme Court’s new ruling may create legal loopholes and additional challenges to law. “It creates a bizarre situation,” Garlow said. “How can the court legally justify affirming same-sex marriages that occurred during that four month window, when the law now reads only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California?” The court’s majority rejected the challenge that Proposition 8 is a revision to the constitution - not an amendment - which would require a two-thirds vote by the state legislature to stand. The court also recognized voters’ rights to amend the Constitution through the initiative process, and said “inalienable” rights are not exempt from limitations or restrictions. '
"California's gay marriage ruling signals next step for both sides"
The indecisive decision is a windfall for political consultants and advertising media.
' The next campaign in the gay-marriage fight has already begun. Less than 90 minutes after the California Supreme Court released its ruling on Proposition 8, both sides had already e-mailed supporters soliciting funds anticipating a new ballot measure on gay marriage that could reach voters in 2010. "We don't have time to mourn the failure of the state court to restore marriage equality to California," wrote Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign, in a 10:15 a.m. e-mail. He added that it was "time to go on offense" and asked supporters to send money for pro-gay-marriage advertising that could begin airing on television later this week. Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, waited until a little after 11 a.m. to hit up his supporters, writing: "We must turn our attention to protecting this victory . . . and must raise several million dollars to get our message out. . . . Please click here to make a contribution." In addition to buying advertising on TV, both sides are also hiring community organizers who will help supporters reach out to sway individual voters. '
THE SACRAMENTO BEE
"From San Francisco to midtown Sacramento, reaction is deep"
Citizens seem to understand the problems the Court has created better than the judges.
' "All this does is create two classes of citizens. I'm really saddened by this," said Kate Moore, who married her partner Tina Reynolds in an October ceremony at the Crest Theater in downtown Sacramento. Jorge Riley, a Proposition 8 supporter who traveled to San Francisco, representing fellow students at American River College in Sacramento, said he was pleased and relieved. "Justice has finally been served," he said. "This is the will of the people." Of the 18,000 couples in California who already hold marriage licenses, Riley said, "a lot of laws will have to accommodate those people, and it just doesn't make sense. I think those marriages will end up being invalidated." As he spoke outside the court building, a woman with the word "QUEER" painted on her forehead confronted him, repeatedly blowing a harmonica into his face before police led her away. '
THE BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN
"Locals vow new fight over gay marriage"
Marriage is now a revolving door, spun by hatred and ignorance.
' Both sides on the Kern County front of the same-sex marriage battle agreed Tuesday that their fight is not over. While the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, it left a door in the debate wide open: If voters have the right to make same-sex marriage illegal, they also have the right to legalize it again. Local gay rights activist Juan Cerda said the court ruling was disheartening and he plans to fight it through education — getting out into the community, knocking on doors and talking to people. “It's not just your vote, it's other people's marriage,” he said during a rally Tuesday evening in front of Outback Steakhouse on Stockdale Highway. “When do I get a chance to vote on your marriage?” Lisa Chidester, a stay-at-home Bakersfield mother who became a volunteer coordinator on the Yes on 8 campaign last year, said she is proud of the exhaustive work it took to pass the constitutional amendment in November. "I don't want my children to go to school and learn about gay marriage. That should stay at home," she said. "This is too important to let go." '
"Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government"
The problem with "Props" in a nutshell.
' When Progressives designed the direct democracy laws almost 100 years ago, they envisioned a process that would act as a safety valve, enabling citizens to supplement the work of the legislature when it failed to act. Today’s initiative process, however, has outstripped the authors’ vision. An emerging culture of democracy-by-initiative is transforming the electorate into a fourth and new branch of state government. Voters now exercise many of the legislative and executive powers traditionally reserved for the first and second branches of government. Some observers worry that ballot initiatives are undermining political party responsibility and the traditional forms of representative government in California. They say the initiative route discards checks and balances and its deliberateness in favor of ill-conceived, rash, and poorly drafted schemes. Initiatives, they fear, have shifted the policymaking burden to the voters, leaving them overwhelmed by the growing number of measures on the ballot. The problem, they maintain, is exacerbated by poor drafting, misleading campaigns, bewildering counter-initiatives, and by court rulings declaring initiatives unconstitutional or partially unconstitutional. '
"California 2009 ballot propositions"
Low turn-outs for off-year Prop-only elections, with no candidates for high office running.
' Voter turnout predictions * In contrast to the 78% voter turnout in November 2008 in San Mateo County, elections manager David Tom says he expects a much lower turnout for the May 19 election, in the vicinity of 30-35%. * Ventura County Assistant Registrar of Voters Tracy Saucedo said on May 15 that about a third of voters who had been issued mail-in ballots had returned them, or about 13% of Ventura County's 422,342 registered voters. This rate of voting is about the same as the June 2008 ballot proposition election, in which a total of 29.5% of voters in the county ultimately voted. * Fresno County Clerk Victor Salazar said, ""I just don't see any driving force that's going to bring out the voters." He predicts that turnout in the county will come to 25% of registered voters. It was 72% in November. '
"1 Kings 3:16-28"
No Solomons, these judges actually split the baby.
' 16 Then came there two women, that were harlots, unto the king, and stood before him. 17 And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. 18 And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house. 19 And this woman's child died in the night; because she overlaid it. 20 And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom. 21 And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, which I did bear. 22 And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son. And this said, No; but the dead is thy son, and the living is my son. Thus they spake before the king. 23 Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living. 24 And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. 25 And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. 26 Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. 27 Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof. 28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment. '.
TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!