More from the 'dumb as dead cats' State of California -

[kyburg]

ass_ mentioned this morning that the judge that ruled on the gay marriage issue yesterday was a Catholic Republican appointee of Pete Wilson's - so much for the activist judge kludge, neh?

But I still have concerns on this issue stemming from the fact that in March 2000, this state voted for a ballot initiative to restrict gay marriage - and it passed. Here's the poop on it.

How are you going to get around that and still declare marriage other than a heterosexual union, legal?

Stay tuned, I guess.

Dumb as dead cats. At times.

Here we go again.

Comments

[mdlbear]

"But I still have concerns on this issue stemming from the fact that in March 2000, this state voted for a ballot initiative to restrict gay marriage - and it passed."

First point: as far as I can tell, the effect of this latest decision is to rule that initiative unconstitutional.

Second point: it's five years later, and it would take more than a majority vote to ammend the state constitution. Not clear which way that would go, though.

Third point: Marriage in California, and for all I know in many other states as well, has always been defined in terms a civil contract -- religion has never had much to do with it beyond the name and setting the terms of that contract in the first place. You don't even need to be a registered minister in order to perform a marriage anymore; anyone can do it (and I have). Essentially all this ruling does is say that any two people can make such a contract, regardless of their genders.

-- of course, none of that is going to change the fact that the fundamentalists are going to push back as hard as they can, and probably put gay rights back 50 years in the process.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

And take every progressive with them.

That's sad. They don't want to go, and neither do I.

But what else can be done? As the old saw goes, right's right and wrong's wrong -

Stay tuned, I guess.