California Gay Marriage Ruling

The AP reports: "A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married. If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final."

I feel I need to weigh in on this ruling:
1. This Is Social Liberalism By Judicial Fiat - This ruling came from none other than the Supreme Court of California, just as Massachusetts allowed gay marriage by judicial fiat. Four justices (out of seven) should not be allowed to drastically change the entire definition of an institution that has existed for thousands of years of Judeo-Christian civilization and hundreds of years of American jurisprudence. Proponents of gay marriage cannot convince citizens of a single state to allow for marriage to be for those of the same sex. They have thus implemented the successful tactic of running to the liberal courts to impose their will on the people. It is only through judicial activism that social liberals are enforcing their visions. This issue should be left up to the people of California to decide.

2. California, Via Popular Vote, Has Already Declared Marriage As Between Men and Women - Proposition 22 was passed reflecting the will of a strong majority of Californians. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% in favor. The Proposition simply stated, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet the court violated the will of the people. Through democratic action and popular vote the people of the Golden State made their voices heard. I do not think it is the job of courts to redefine marriage especially when the will of the people of the State has been so clearly demonstrated. The people have spoken, let their word stand.

3. California Already Has Civil Unions - The issue in California is simply whether the term marriage should be extended to homosexuals. They already are afforded civil unions. So this is not an issue of obtaining some lost rights that heterosexuals have, but rather one dealing with what marriage itself means. Why judges should decide this is even more complex.

4. Schwarzenegger Is Dead Wrong - Arnold Schwarzenegger responded to the court ruling saying, “I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. . . I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.” This governor has vetoed gay marriage legislation twice specifically because the legislature was acting against the will of the people as expressed in Prop 22. He said both times that he would like the issue left to voters or the courts. Why the legislature should be vetoed but the court supported for doing the same thing, namely violating the will of the people in Prop 22, is quite perplexing. He now fully supports the courts reinterpretation of marriage and further opposes any attempt to give the people a chance to respond through democratic means this November via a vote on a constitutional amendment. He previously acted as if his vetoes were a protection of the people's votes and voice, but now he is against allowing the people to be heard. This makes no sense at all.

5. Marriage Is Not A Civil Right - Marriage is certainly a matter of civil law. But it is not a civil right. The issue is what the government ought to do. The issue at hand is whether the basic assumptions, that in fact predated the law, about what constitutes marriage should be upheld. It is about whether the law is right or wrong. This being the case the issues of equal protection do not apply. Equal protection does not say anything about what constitutes marriage. Equal protection is about the law being applied equally to all. It is about equal rights under the law being afforded to all, not what the law is itself about. If violating equal protection meant not accommodating those who wanted to alter the understood meaning of the institution then anyone could make these ridiculous claims. Caretakers could claim to be married if they so wished. Business partners could claim to be married if it helped the business. Friends who live together could be married. A person should legally be able to have multiple spouses (and at least that has a historical basis in terms of marriage). Anyone could claim to be married to anyone, since apparently violating an individual's idea of what marriage ought to be is considered legal discrimination and a violation of some fundamental right. But the truth is that it cannot, because marriage has a specific definition. The law, based on their underlying assumptions and the definition of marriage, treats all citizens to whom it applies fairly. Blacks get married. Whites get married. Jews get married. Gentiles get married. Immigrants get married. Asians and Latinos get married. Believe it or not, gays can get married too, so long as they marry the opposite sex. But saying that because marriage doesn't include same-sex couples it is therefore a violation of equal protection is absurd. The law does not apply to them in the first place. If one wants to argue that marriage should have a completely new meaning, then a new law is necessary to bring about same-sex marriage. This is because it requires a redefinition of what marriage itself means.
Furthermore, it is nothing short of disgusting when gay activists use the the loaded term "civil right." The term alone brings about memories of the Black civil rights movement. Sometimes they go so far as to compare their cause to that noble movement. Homosexuals are not Blacks in the Jim Crow South. The laws of this land apply equally to gays, they did not apply equally to blacks. There are no signs saying "No Gays Allowed.". To make these comparisons trivializes the history of segregation and racism.

6. This Will Help Republicans In The Election - There is no way this helps Democrats in the 2008 elections. Conservatives will come out in November to try and pass the constitutional amendment in California. Obama will win California but this may force him to spend more money and energy than he may have expected. Furthermore, it puts the gay marriage issue back on the table in November. As a rule, when this issue has been on the table it only helps Republicans. That's because judges are not the only people who get to vote.


Tweet

Obama Lies About Clapping In Energy Speech; Continues To Attack Bush For Opposing Appeasement

This may be insignificant in the larger scheme of things but it begs the questions: What is it about Barack Obama, along with Hillary and her Tuzla lie for that matter, that he feels he needs to lie about small things to make points in his speeches? Can't he make his point about energy policy without having to resort to fabricated stories about clapping? Could Hillary not make her point about experience without fantasies of darting bullets in Bosnia? Does a tendency to lie about the little things demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness on the larger issues?

Obama has lied to us before. He lied about what he knew about his pastor, trying to dupe the American people at first saying he never heard Wright say anything controversial, then later saying he did know there were controversies, and only later when political expediency demanded it did he denounce Wright. A pattern of lying is not a good thing either, folks.

Obama continues to pretend he is being attacked by what Bush said in the Knesset saying that it was a "dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days." Now here comes the clincher: "They aren't telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits. But it's not going to work. Not this time, not this year." I laugh at Obama claiming Bush or McCain are trying to fool people. What they believe is clear. It is Obama that hides his true feelings behind empty slogans. It is Obama that tried fooling us when it came to his pastor. It is Obama who has used the tactic (succesfully, might I add) of pretending to be attacked when there was no attack to begin with. He did it with a member of his own party when he went after Geraldine Ferraro for being racist. He claimed the the tapes of Wright were some sort of conspiritorial attack when what they were was his own pastor's words. He then says that he has stated "over and over again that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas." Is Mahmoud Ahmadenijad not a terrorist "like Hamas?" He constantly, to the point that we're all pretty immune to it at this point, calls for Israel's destruction. This is like Hamas. But he is like Hamas in word as well as in deed. Iran is funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and Taliban elements. They are funding and supplying weapons to Jihadists in Iraq that have killed Americans. Yet Obama has said in no uncertain terms that he would talk with Iran without any preconditions. So Obama's "like Hamas" semantics are convenient, but not really logical at all. If McCain attacks him on his inconsistency, on his naivete, on his policy of appeasement, that is not fooling anyone. In fact, it is probably educating everyone.

Obama
by krs601

Tweet

Unlike Michelle Obama, People Of Tennessee Are Proud Americans

Tweet

Bill O'reilly Flips Out Remix

WARNING: Graphic language content.
Sorry, but there is no getting around it. I just had to post the remix:
Tweet

Bush Blasts Appeasement At Knesset; Dems Go Beserk

Take a listen to some of Bush's comments in support of Israel at the Knesset:


Naturally, the pro-appeasement Democrats just went beserk. Instead of commending Bush's sentiments, Obama (with his talk of appeasing Iran) said that Bush used the speech "to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack." But you can't blame Obama, he just wants to live up to his Hamas endorsement. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation" at the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary. Senator Joe Biden said, “This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement.” Hillary Clinton said Bush's statement was "offensive and outrageous." The appeasement Democrats led by Barack Hussein Obama can't even let the president support Israel without going crazy. The president did not even mention Obama or the Democrats, he merely and rightly condemned appeasement in a speech to the Israeli Knesset. But the party of surrender, of cutting and running, of talking to the mad Mullahs of Iran, of defeat and retreat just could not handle Bush's comments on appeasement. Hey Dems: Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Meanwhile, Palestinians protested across the West Bank and Gaza on the 60th anniversary of the Nakba, or "catastrophe," of the birth of Israel on Thursday. Tweet

Reporter Insulted After Obama Calls Her "Sweetie"

Tweet

Grandfather of Hamas TV Bunny Assud Insists Tel Aviv Was a Palestinian City

Delusions that are necessary to convince the new generation of Jihadists to conquer Tel Aviv. I also find it odd that the grandfather of a bunny is an old Arab man. Unlike Donald Duck who has three duck sons and anUncle scrooge McDuck, this rabbit apparently has an old man as a grandpa. But hey, I guess there's strange breeding going on over there. See http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1766.htm
Tel Aviv 1909:

Tel Aviv today:

Tweet

Rockets Attack Ashkelon Mall

At least 14 people were wounded Wednesday evening, including a mother and her three-year-old daughter, when a Grad rocket fired from Gaza hit the Hutzot Shopping Center in Ashkelon. See
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668635737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull for more details. Tweet

Gazans For Obama

In the wake of the Hamas endoresement for Obama I might as well show you this old clip from a month ago showing Gazans actually working to get Obama elected. Let's remember that Gaza is run by Hamas. Is there really nothing more important going on over there that they have to work to get Obama elected?
Tweet

NY TV News Anchor Drops The F Bomb On Air

This is a recent clip of a blowup caught on camera, unlike the O'reilly one that came out and got a lot of attention. I just love how the anchor goes from being professional and then one second later erupts with the F-word. At least Bill O'reilly had the common sense to explode once the camera was off. This woman uses her choice words while they are still on air. By the way, there is no way this clip will get nearly as much attention as the O'reilly one.
Tweet

Joe Lieberman On Obama's Hamas Endorsement

Lieberman says that the Hamas endorsement of Barack Obama "suggests a difference" between Obama and McCain. This comes after a Hamas spokesman said they would welcome an Obama presidency. Lieberman goes on to eloquently discuss the strength of McCain's presidency, namely that "our allies will trust him and our enemies will fear him." Watch the clip to see Joseph Lieberman on Obama:
Tweet

Old Clip Of Bill O'reilly Losing It

WARNING: Graphic Language Content.
Tweet

SNL On Hillary Clinton

Tweet