Friday - October 06, 2006

California Court Slaps Homosexuals

It looks like another setback for the homosexuals in Kalifornia. An appeals court yesterday decided that when the majority of citizens vote to deny marriage rights to homosexuals, the courts have to abide by the wishes of the people. Isn’t that an interesting concept? Voters deciding issues? What is the world coming to when a radical minority can’t override the citizens of a state in court?

Of course the story below wouldn’t be near complete without the obligatory last two paragraphs in which the homosexuals cry “foul” and raise the race card. They are convinced that Kalifornia will soon be putting up signs in rest rooms saying “Heterosexuals Only” and forcing homosexuals to ride in the back of the bus. In their mind, anyone who doesn’t bow to their wishes and give them anything they want is a certified homophobe ... and probably racist to boot. And they acuse us heterosexuals of being “intolerant”? Go figure ....

Court Backs California Ban On
Same-Sex Marriages
_{SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Thu Oct 5, 2006 8:13pm ET}

A California appeals court upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday, reversing a lower court’s judgment against a voter-approved law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“The Legislature and the voters of this state have determined that ‘marriage’ in California is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples, and it makes no difference whether we agree with their reasoning,” the California Court of Appeal held.

“We may not strike down a law simply because we think it unwise or because we believe there is a fairer way of dealing with the problem,” it said in a majority opinion written by Justice William McGuiness. The decision stalls, at least temporarily, efforts to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage. But gay activists said they will appeal to the California Supreme Court.

Jon Davidson of the gay rights group Lambda Legal said the California law was unfair, and legal analysts expect lawsuits over same-sex marriage will continue for years across the United States. “This violates a fundamental right that all people have in California, which is to marry a person of their choice,” Davidson said.

The appeals court reversed a lower court, which had overturned California’s ban on gay nuptials in a lawsuit triggered by the marriage licenses San Francisco briefly issued to same-sex couples in 2004. “Courts in this state simply do not have authority to redefine marriage,” the appeals court said.It said a voter initiative or legislation would be required to legalize same-sex marriage.

California’s Democrat-led legislature last year passed a bill to make same-sex marriages legal, making it the first in the country to do so, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. The governor has said voters or courts should decide whether the state’s marriage law should be altered. Voters approved a law defining marriage as the union of a man and woman in 2000.

In its ruling Thursday, the court noted gay couples in California have rights comparable to married heterosexuals thanks to domestic partnership laws. But gay rights activists said comparable rights are not equal rights, and, citing Justice J. Anthony Kline’s dissent, they said the majority carved out an unconstitutional “separate but equal” standard for gays by supporting domestic partnerships, which Kline compared to laws enforcing racial segregation.

The domestic partnership act is “a form of pseudomarriage that stigmatizes homosexual unions in much the same way ‘separate but equal’ public schools stigmatized black students,” Kline said. “Like separate educational facilities, domestic partnership and marriage are ‘inherently unequal,’” he said.

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/06/2006 at 01:00 AM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner